5th page, when aiming, Efren Reyes divides the object ball into 4 quarters and sights the edge of the cue ball to the point of aim, it sounds like he has been using CTE
Can someone explain why Earl used to just take one look and fire the ball in?
- Thread starter WhatsTheSpot
- Start date
5th page, when aiming, Efren Reyes divides the object ball into 4 quarters and sights the edge of the cue ball to the point of aim, it sounds like he has been using CTE
He decides what he wants to do... Commits to it and does it.....No need for multiple warm ups, staring at the balls, or worrying about a piece of lint on the table.
Many amateurs could benefit from this type of routine.
Many amateurs could benefit from this type of routine.
Many would say he is out of line far more often than not
No doubt that Earl is one of the greatest pool players in the world. But only God and Earl know how much work, sweat, and tears Earl put into his practice in the early years to develop that natural talent. He put the hours in and deserves the wins.
LOL!, My first thought when I read the thread title- 'because he can!' We used to watch entire 'Earl' matches watching for the object ball to touch the rail on the way in. Buddy Hall was the same way. Object ball into the outside face, every time. Earl's accuracy is outstanding-that's why he wants to play on <4 inch pockets-but I couldn't say if it's all natural or years of hard work. I'm betting it's both.
Almost spit my drink out..
true that
i spend most of my time aiming and getting a feel for the shot and position while i'm standing there, when i'm ready i get down, stroke twice and fire. if i stay down for any time longer, i usually get up and go through my PSR again.....either that or pass out
i spend most of my time aiming and getting a feel for the shot and position while i'm standing there, when i'm ready i get down, stroke twice and fire. if i stay down for any time longer, i usually get up and go through my PSR again.....either that or pass out
Then there is that guy that never has sense of humorThere's always that one guy that has to throw in a cheap jab
That's one of my strong points. I took it at face value since you didn't put any emoticons. :thumbup:
Just figured you were one of the many that don't like the guy.
I find emoticons distracting. I try to use them only occasionally. I find them to give the effect that laughing hysterically at your own jokes does.
i do the same thing just miss more
First of all, Earl has it all, talent, intensity and an incredible work attitude (it's a mystery to me how he does it, for example, I wish I were as physically fit, running four miles every day, but heck, for some reason my days all appear to have only 24 hours…).
Secondly, beware of concepts of "aiming". When I was a beginner, there was no one to learn from in my neck of the woods. I used side spin on most shots, and although I already used to get down after I'd decided what I'd do, I still needed to get a feel for a shot once I was bending over the table (performing "micro-adjustments", so to speak). I only took professional lessons after I'd won a first national title, and I can honestly say that my shot-making ability hasn't improved in the last quarter of a century. I still do best when I do something that admittedly has started to feel energy-consuming now that I'm getting older: get a feel for the shot, which means nothing less than stop after my practice strokes, focus back and forth between cue ball and object ball and ask myself the simple question if what I see feels right (although there's no need to put this in words, on the contrary). I do not remember missing a single shot in my whole life where/when I had the patience to truly do this (= make sure my subconscious was indeed fully satisfied, in a worst case scenario get up and start over again etc.). I'd go so far as to claim that I've made shots this way that not only I'm unable to do any other way (such as banks and kick shots in competitive situations with my back to the wall), but that I've never practiced and would not be able to repeat unless under sufficient pressure to do so.
Note I'm not talking about an aiming technique here: focussing my eyes back and forth between cue ball and object ball, and listening to my inner voice, I know if I'm e.g. under- or over-cutting, or dead-on. And I'm no different than anyone else in this respect. 25 years of teaching others has taught me that everyone can do this, that I'm not in any way, nor do anything special. Admittedly, it takes nerves to learn to trust in one's aim, because it's not a rational process. But ultimately we're always going to leave it to our subconscious (our "on-board computer" as I jokingly call it sometimes) to execute motion sequences. It's not the jockey who races: the mind will have to learn to leave that part to the body and thus our subconscious, no matter how one slices the matter. And it's useless to tinker with such a well-honed machine. Think about it: one that can walk a tightrope without further practice than the ability to walk itself - which like all the good stuff in life we didn't learn, but acquired. That's why the horse and jockey analogy should be taken with the appropriate grain of salt: the body is not a workhorse we beat into submission - the jockey, at best, is a passenger trying not to interfere.
Millions of years worth of evolution. If we handed control over to our minds, would we be able to get up from a chair or tie our shoes?
Now, one might assume (wrongly) that a pool player's stroke is "bodily execution" but that aiming is/should be in the realm of the mind. I've always doubted this, perhaps because I learnt it all "wrong". The mind is like the jockey, pointing out options, possibly precluding options. Preferably visualizing just one at a time, no more, no less - that feels right.
As a pool player, beware of the mind for all it does is crave for attention: it's constantly trying to claim praise for something it doesn't do. I do not remember mine shooting a single ball into a pocket for me ever.
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
Secondly, beware of concepts of "aiming". When I was a beginner, there was no one to learn from in my neck of the woods. I used side spin on most shots, and although I already used to get down after I'd decided what I'd do, I still needed to get a feel for a shot once I was bending over the table (performing "micro-adjustments", so to speak). I only took professional lessons after I'd won a first national title, and I can honestly say that my shot-making ability hasn't improved in the last quarter of a century. I still do best when I do something that admittedly has started to feel energy-consuming now that I'm getting older: get a feel for the shot, which means nothing less than stop after my practice strokes, focus back and forth between cue ball and object ball and ask myself the simple question if what I see feels right (although there's no need to put this in words, on the contrary). I do not remember missing a single shot in my whole life where/when I had the patience to truly do this (= make sure my subconscious was indeed fully satisfied, in a worst case scenario get up and start over again etc.). I'd go so far as to claim that I've made shots this way that not only I'm unable to do any other way (such as banks and kick shots in competitive situations with my back to the wall), but that I've never practiced and would not be able to repeat unless under sufficient pressure to do so.
Note I'm not talking about an aiming technique here: focussing my eyes back and forth between cue ball and object ball, and listening to my inner voice, I know if I'm e.g. under- or over-cutting, or dead-on. And I'm no different than anyone else in this respect. 25 years of teaching others has taught me that everyone can do this, that I'm not in any way, nor do anything special. Admittedly, it takes nerves to learn to trust in one's aim, because it's not a rational process. But ultimately we're always going to leave it to our subconscious (our "on-board computer" as I jokingly call it sometimes) to execute motion sequences. It's not the jockey who races: the mind will have to learn to leave that part to the body and thus our subconscious, no matter how one slices the matter. And it's useless to tinker with such a well-honed machine. Think about it: one that can walk a tightrope without further practice than the ability to walk itself - which like all the good stuff in life we didn't learn, but acquired. That's why the horse and jockey analogy should be taken with the appropriate grain of salt: the body is not a workhorse we beat into submission - the jockey, at best, is a passenger trying not to interfere.
Millions of years worth of evolution. If we handed control over to our minds, would we be able to get up from a chair or tie our shoes?
Now, one might assume (wrongly) that a pool player's stroke is "bodily execution" but that aiming is/should be in the realm of the mind. I've always doubted this, perhaps because I learnt it all "wrong". The mind is like the jockey, pointing out options, possibly precluding options. Preferably visualizing just one at a time, no more, no less - that feels right.
As a pool player, beware of the mind for all it does is crave for attention: it's constantly trying to claim praise for something it doesn't do. I do not remember mine shooting a single ball into a pocket for me ever.
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:
WhatsTheSpot
Banned
shhh. don't give out too much valuable information for free...... we don't want the citizens to come back and start beating us...... what you've described is perfect and very valuable. .00001% of pool players will actually use what you said. The rest will forget it, or just fall back on their own methods of failure.
Should mention: of course I'll teach "aiming" if required. But I do believe there is something to try and do e.g. an exercise in trusting one's subconscious and let go. For example, it took me until 8:33 in the following video until I forgot myself and walked behind the shot line to look at the contact point on the object ball - something I usually do on every shot (I also simply believe it helps our on-board computer to have seen the lay of the balls from at least two perspectives - absorbing knowledge, not necessarily trying to achieve anything specific). Even though I'm walking more when I go and have a look, I'm quicker that way. To do what I described above takes time, i.e. may effectively slow down one's pace (as it admittedly does in the video). But it's good sometimes to exercise reminding oneself that our subconscious knows all there is to know: where the pocket is, where the cue and object balls are in relation to the pocket, where each and every part of our body is (along with the cue stick as its extension).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhSjBippNn8
Now, if one watches Earl, one will notice he only walks behind the shot line to look at the contact point on the object ball in certain situations, nothing to do with the difficulty, let alone a certain type of shot. He's that economic. Needless to say, economy is another sign of a great player. I have no doubt it's part of what won him his many titles.
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
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhSjBippNn8
Now, if one watches Earl, one will notice he only walks behind the shot line to look at the contact point on the object ball in certain situations, nothing to do with the difficulty, let alone a certain type of shot. He's that economic. Needless to say, economy is another sign of a great player. I have no doubt it's part of what won him his many titles.
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:
I'm going to split the difference.
Without practice one can have awesome natural ability and be good but not great, combined with a work ethic they will become great. As an analogy I will use Ken Griffey Jr ... who used to take 1,000 swings in the cage every day before the rest of the team showed up for practice. Awesome genetics on both sides of the family ... but his work ethic took him to an entirely new level that his all star father never quite reached.
Another analogy is Darryl Strawberry. Had magnificent natural ability ... and ten cents worth of ethics.
You should have just gone ahead and said that you spit your drink out. It would have been a better story and we would never have known the difference.
You understand. Thank you. Missing comes from a conflict of the conscious and subconscious minds
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2