I think Nielson....and he is a super one pocket player. I heard he was back in Denver lately.
Can anyone run 100 with enough practice?
- Thread starter skierlawyer
- Start date
I think Nielson....and he is a super one pocket player. I heard he was back in Denver lately.
Excellent post. Particularly about controlling the adrenaline and staying relaxed as you approach you personal best. It's much, much harder than it seems. For me at least. Only similar experience that I'm familiar with is the first time you see a buck in the woods when you're hunting.
Good post Danny,
Ron F
Thumbs Up
Danny, Thanks for posting. It is really nice when a player of your caliper writes a comment like this. It really helps me & I am sure many others. Thanks again.
Danny, Thanks for posting. It is really nice when a player of your caliper writes a comment like this. It really helps me & I am sure many others. Thanks again.
Maybe this is for another thread, but how many pros ran 100+ out of how many attempts at the DCC 14.1 Challenge? I was watching the 2006? 14.1 World Championships and I was surprised how many low runs there were with open tables. I kept thinking, uh oh, it's over now and it wouldn't be.
To me that is just a reflection of how of a key knowledge is to play the game at the highest level. A lot of those players are not that well versed in straight pool since they don't compete at the game so much, so they don't get the practice or the playing time. When you watch the 2006 DVD's pay particular attention to guys like Engert.
Dennis will have all the numbers but here a few off the top of my head.
Harriman, 36 attempts no runs over 100.
Appleton, 24 attempts 1 over 100.
Alex, 12 attempts 1 over 100.
Orcollo 40 attempts 2 over 100.
Niels, 12 attempts 1 over 100.
Ralf, 12 attempts 1 over 100.
Schmidt 29 attempts 6 over 100.
Huidji See, 36 attempts 1 over 100.
Archer, 8 attempts 1 over 100.
Mika, 12 attempts 2 over 100.
Mats, 24 attempts 1 over 100.
I believe this was the extent of 100+ ball runs.
Out of over 500 attempts it appears that there were 17 runs over 100.
Schmidt went 6 for 29 (over 20%), while the rest of the entrants combined went 11 for 471 or more (about 2%).
John is amazing. But when oh when is he going to actually win a 14.1 event?
I don't think this is a valid comparison or argument at all. For one thing, putting the asterisked footnote aside*, Willie's run was done as part of an exhibition, that "just happened to roll into a high run" that night. The guys above were under pressure from the get-go (competing against each other) to get a high run. Not to run a match out, and then just, oh, what-the-heck, "let's see how far we can take this" into a high run -- but a high run right at the outset.
Comparing Willie's 526 to the above players' performance is the same as comparing Thomas Engert's 491, or Stephan Cohen's 431, or Gene Nagy's 430, or any multi-hundred high run in practice to the above players' performance in the heat of battle. It's not a valid comparison.
-Sean
* = done on an 8-footer with recreation-sized pockets, vs. the extremely-tight pockets on these Diamond 9-footers (big difference)
My point being that running 100 isn't easy.
I ran 127 when I was 18. I was in the US Army and to put it bluntly, I had no life. When I bragged to my father about it (he was a very good player who gave up the game when he married my mom), he told me I was spending too much time playing pool. That criticism stuck in my head over the years, and every time I get close to 100 I get nervous and never get past 80. I haven't played seriously in years, and nowadays when I try to play I only frustrate myself. I hope I don't get flak for saying this, but the ROI for running 100 simply isn't worth it to me. I still enjoy watching great players, and I encourage them, just can't go there myself. Not anymore. Maybe when I retire...
The way I look at it is the journey is the fun part. I don't think you need to spend 8 hours a day at the table to eventually run 100. Give up 2 or 3 hours a night watching TV and shoot pool instead. That isn't such a bad thing. Of course there is no right or wrong in this discussion.
Really? 2 - 3 hours per night? Is this enough to eventually have the ability to run 100? I play about 10-12 hours per week and I still only run into the 20's and occasionally a 30's.
Well there's playing and then there's playing. Are you practicing 10-12 hours or are you playing other people for that length of time? I'm not an instructor so I can't say for sure but I think it's highly dependent on the person's ability. Let's say you're someone who has played as a kid and occasionally thereafter, and maybe on a good day can run out at 8 ball or run a rack of 9 ball or maybe run 20 balls once in awhile. Let's also say your fundamentals are decent but tend to break down unpredictably. I think a person like that who has structured PRACTICE for a couple/few hours per day can make enormous strides.
I'm a big believer in identifying and attacking your weaknesses, and letting the ball count take care of itself. That's why I always shy away from keeping run stats. You're going to know very well how you are progressing without the distraction of recording all your runs and looking at them over time.
I'm with the guys who say running 100 is harder than you might think if you regularly run 28. However, I don't think it takes the sacrifice of a Shaolin Monk to get there.
That's me, exactly!!! I've recently taken some lessons to sure up my fundamentals, and I am committed to practicing a few hours a few times a week in addition to my normal playing. I've temporarily lost some ability due to trying to incorporate my lessons. ie: playing slower, and more deliberately. I think it will payoff in the future. I'm being patient with myself and not worrying about my game for now. It can get frustrating when my friends who I usually play even with are beating my brains in, and making fun of me for getting lessons and playing worse, but I believe I will start beating their brains out soon enough. Its tough to run balls when you are thinking about your stance, staying down, not steering the cue, ect. I figure another 10 or 100 or 1000 hours of practice and it will become automatic and I can start focusing on the game more than on myself. Then watch out
Well Dan-
i hope you know, that i have VERY much respect for your game-and also for your supportive comments.
But if it s about structured practicing i totally disagree. I m a *fan* and believer of noting almost everything (as far possible if you re playing solo). The most important is to have well defined goals- in any sport/game!
And so measurable results are a great help and from my point of view absolutley necessary. It presents you also a kind of competition in training.
lg
Ingo
Brian
I'd say the answer is yes, as you do get beyond a rack at least occasionally. Taking lessons would seem like a good idea, the reason being, you're already playing more than most amateurs' weekly practice time. What this means is you're probably playing more than practicing those aspects of your game that keep you from running more balls. Many players play and don't practice, or believe it's one and the same, and thus remain eternally stuck on that readily-attained level. One of the things that I'd do is to start a sketch book in which you put down how your runs end, and take that to an instructor. The point is, he or she may see something beyond what you see.
To give an example, I get to teach students often who claim their runs end because they miss "easy shots", and as soon as I ask them to make said shot for me ten times in a row it turns out they can't do it. Which doesn't lead us to the seeming "obvious", which would be that they should practice a specific type of shot to perfection, but to what truly easy shots are, and how one manages to get a hundred of those in a row.
The truth is, you're already playing too long to improve much on your pocketing skills (= in all likelihood: I'd need to see you play, video-tape and analyze - there's almost always potential).
It usually turns out people's runs end just like anyone else's, i.e. there's nothing left to shoot at (= the situation is hopeless enough to where in competition, a pro, or anyone not doing haphazard stuff on a pool table, would play safe), or they're leaving themselves a shot not even their revered instructor could make (LOL!).
One of many truths in Straight Pool is that it's harder to admit to oneself that one's patterns need improvement than one's shot-making skills, the reason being that the former has to do with intelligence: don't we all hate to feel stupid? But pattern play can be improved upon infinitely even reaching an age where e.g. poor eyesight precludes a player from pulling the proverbial rabbit out of the hat more than say once at best in a three-digit-ball run.
A recommendation: watch the Accustats player review of Jim Rempe vs Ginky Sansouci, and listen to Jim's seeming obsession with finding the simplest "can't miss" type of shot at any given time, again and again and again… It's enlightening because it's totally unlike why the average amateur believes a pro is superior. It not only turns out the pro isn't without fear of difficult shots, but notice what type of shots he refers to as difficult to begin with: those are all shots that my amateur students believe are easy! Watching more closely, you'll come to a simple conclusion: no wonder the guy (almost!) never misses - he won't shoot a ball unless it's a certainty, he won't shoot a ball unless there's some sort of safety valve that ensures he'll have something easy to shoot at at all times, and apparently a makable shot can't be easy enough to even be thought of as makable in the first place.
Moral: Straight Pool is like playing Mozart: too easy for beginners, too difficult for the pro.
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________
„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti
Last edited:
In the heat of battle is right: some of the runs I remember most vividly, and am most proud of, were in the 40- to 50-somethings, for example right after my opponent had to play safe a ball or two short of victory, and I three-fouled on purpose etc. To run three or four racks with one's back to the wall, the other guy needing only three or four balls, is as great a feeling as any, IMHO.
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________
„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti
Last edited:
Obviously you've never seen me play.
-and also for your supportive comments.
But if it s about structured practicing i totally disagree. I m a *fan* and believer of noting almost everything (as far possible if you re playing solo). The most important is to have well defined goals- in any sport/game!
And so measurable results are a great help and from my point of view absolutley necessary. It presents you also a kind of competition in training.
lg
Ingo
I'm all for structured practice. In fact I don't play unless there's a reason for it (OK, sometimes the reason is to try for a high run
). Our disagreement is in how to measure improvement. As a (former) engineer, I understand all about the numbers and measuring things. However, as a pool player (kinda), I like to keep my mind focused the fewest possible things at a time. Let me give an example (keep in mind we're talking about someone who has OK fundamentals, but still has a long way to go in their overall game. In other words, just about everything needs to be improved):Let's say I'm running balls and I am going to record every run I make for the next hour. Let's say I'm only going to write down runs more than 20 balls. So now the back of my mind is thinking what my ball count is. Now I have a run of 18 and I need to reach from the head of the table to shoot the 19th ball in the corner and follow down 12 inches for my 20th ball. However, I only roll forward 6 inches and I can't make my 20th ball. Now I'm going to count the balls I made again to be sure I'm not off by 1 and regret that I just messed up that shot to get 20.
Conversely, if I'm not tracking the run lengths, I'm using the "score-keeping" mental energy for paying more attention to playing. When I come up short 6" on position, now, I'm not thinking of that 20th ball. Instead, I'm wondering why I missed position so bad. I might realize that the long reach caused me to poke at the cue ball instead of my normal stroke, resulting in poor roll. So now I know to shoot that shot some more to see how it feels to do it properly.
That's just a little example, but FOR ME, I want my mental energy going into observation of what is happening on the table. I've come to learn that there is such a subtly difference between a good stroke, a great stroke and and excellent stroke that I need every brain cell to be focused on observing how to achieve that excellent stroke. There are always times I can observe high runs, but frankly, I know when my game is improving because I'm running more racks. I don't need to see an exact number. If I run 50 balls and never had a difficult shot, I know I'm playing better than running 50 balls 2 years ago with lots of hard shots.
Regards,