"Plenty"? If we're still talking strictly short-rack rotation players (and not guys that practice or have very good familiarity with straight pool), sorry John, but no, I would challenge that. A few, or a handful? Sure.
Well the point is rather pedantic I think because the subforum is about aiming and the execution that follows it. So using the only video evidence available of Lou's playing it's fair that his ability is up for scrutiny. Whether or not most, a few or anyone here other than you and Lou can run more than 30 balls is not the point really. The point is that Lou is on video missing shots that SHOULD be unmissable for a player of his implied caliber.
Actually, that was to address your "multiple swings at the plate" thing, which you reiterated above. I wanted to be clear we were talking about the same thing.
We are now.
Thank you for proving my point. You have entirely too much respect for that "running the balls in rotation" thing. And, those 27-45 balls are NOT being run continuously -- there's 3/4/5 "mind-resetting" break shots in there, remember? They are not truly stringing those 27-45 shots together.
Mind resetting is your term. If you truly want to go there then we can. Because I just fail to see why shooting x-number of balls in rotation where you ONLY have one ball that you are allowed to shoot each time is less of a feat than shooting x-number of balls at random where with few exceptions you have multiple options. I have respect for all disciplines and respect for all the players of skill. I don't consider 14.1 players to be of higher skill than 9-ball players or vice versa.
Sure the patterns need to be learned but other than that it's making balls in the hole.
Although I will give you that the player that CAN string 3 - 5 packs of 9-ball consistently (and we're talking 9-foot table, of course, not barboxes) probably *do* have the shooting prowess to hack their way through a 30-ball straight pool run.
Or possibly more, Johnny Archer one week after learning to play straight pool beat his teacher Nick Varner with a 150 and out which he continued on to extend to 199 if I remember correctly. And this was in the finals of a major pro event which is to say that Johnny beat someone with extensive 14.1 knowledge after only a week of practice.
Oh, come on. You mean to tell me that even you yourself can't tell one player's creed from another? That you can't tell when someone's "cue ball heroics" (racing around the table to get from shot to shot, versus picking the pattern apart correctly) is not one leaning on their base 9-ball skillset?
You mean to tell me that you can't tell a 14.1 player, from a one pocket player, from a 9-ball player, etc. -- just by watching how they play?
But to answer your question, yes, yes we have interviewed players afterwards, and the suspicions were correct in almost every case.
You mean like Lou Butera running 150 and out in 21 minutes? That sort of racing around the table?
That's very true -- pressure gets to us all. But in these pressure situations, we all resort to our "base" or "founding" skillset. And that's my point -- one's "9-ball-ness" comes out in these pressure situations.
See example of Johnny Archer beating Nick Varner above.
Why don't you spend some time with us in the 14.1 challenge booth, and watch? You'll see what I'm talking about, and then we can interview players afterwards, and verify.
If I had time to hang out and enjoy these shows I would. But to be honest if I did have that sort of time I wouldn't want to waste it proving or disproving a point that is ultimately meaningless.
Can't argue that. I got nuthin'.
Well, I have the video proof that I suck part down pat. I just need to get the "actually can play" part down when gambling.
This is common sense. But not all things can be boiled down so simply. Yes, it's true; if you miss, your run is over, you sit, and you lose. But it's also true that you make the ball, you forget that you were supposed to break up that cluster a foot away, and now you lost your window to do so, where that cluster bites you in the *ss later, ending your run, you sit, and you lose. See?
Yes of course but we are talking about Lou here, the great Lou F. who should already know these things and be able to handle them with ease, experienced player that he is.
<...facepalm...> Remember the purpose of my original reply? That before people lambaste, they should know what they're looking at, that not everything is as it looks or seems?
Again you assume that those commenting don't know what they are looking at. A pretty bold assumption in my book. And EVEN IF they didn't know there is an announcer on the video TELLING them what they are looking at.
<...Sean reminds himself he's in the Aiming subforum...> But of course, if we're going to emotionally-charge aiming systems, let's make sure we adopt the stance that *any* miss is sacrilege, right?
Apparently it works that way for Lou. Any person who says that they don't get it is "proof" that the system doesn't work. Any pro who doesn't like systems is "smart" and any pro who does is a no accomplishment bum.
And if I do this will prove what exactly? That I can run 30+ balls? Will I now be someone whose comments mean something?
Right, and conveniently forget that there's more to staying at the table than "don't miss" (which was Willie's trademarked sarcasm, btw -- but obviously, the readership devotees here in this particular forum miss the sarcasm and instead take it as "gospel"). You are just as likely to have to sit and lose with not doing your other duties at the table (e.g. breaking up clusters), as you are with a miss.
Trademarked sarcasm? Where do you find that this is the case? Please quote your source. But even if it were the point is still valid, don't miss. When you fail to break up a cluster you still have the option to play safe so you don't automatically lose. Oh, gee was that 14.1 knowledge....where did that come from?
Here is a video where Willie Mosconi plays Jimmy Caras and in one segment they are playing safe with a cluster on the table that one or both them attempted and failed to break out.
However in a break and run contest then there is no safe option and thus the criteria is 100% make the shot you are shooting AND break out clusters. Sorry but again no bonus points for what you were trying to do if you miss the shot.
"Whether or not" is also too simplistic. You need *both*. You are just as likely to have your run ended, sit, and lose, with not doing that secondary duty, as you are with a miss. Granted, the miss guarantees that position, while you might get lucky in achieving the secondary task in a subsequent shot if you didn't miss. Or not! It really depends on how many balls are left on the table -- you already know this, but the more there are, the more opportunities you have to achieve those secondary goals. But the less balls on the table, the less chances you have -- so back to the original point, you need to achieve those secondary goals as early as possible, thereby tying the primary and secondary goals back together again in each shot. A pool "shot" is a complete system all by itself. You can't deconstruct it or boil it down like you are, without losing the whole premise behind the shot's purpose of keeping you at the table.
I can absolutely boil it down to missing the shot. Miss the shot the inning is over. Make the shot and don't break out the cluster then at least you are still at the table and have a chance to make something else happen. It's really that simple.
You missed the little jab. Nobody seems to take you up on these gaff bets (I've
yet to see one accepted and executed to resolution), so I thought it was monopoly money you were betting.
Why don't you give me an example of a bet that I have proposed that you consider to be a gaff? The reason people don't take me up on the serious ones is that they know they will lose. People don't want to put their money where their mouth is when it comes time to bet. They want to flap their gums and insult others and say that people are frauds and that their work is snake-oil but when it comes time to man-up and bet on those words their nuts shrivel into raisins.
Anyway, let's get something straight -- we *all* use aiming systems. You do, I do, everyone does. If you have a technique or methodology for getting yourself online and set into a shot, ready to fire, you are using an aiming system. I myself have a set number of steps I get into before I'm ready to pull the trigger. That, to me, is a SYSTEM for aiming.
Lou doesn't. Pat doesn't. Lou says that the set up takes care of aiming which is false. Pat says he aims by pure feel which is probably true given how much he fidgets on each shot.
I just think the passion, religion, and especially the vitriol over the topic of "aiming systems" is just entirely overboard. We're getting so wound up over this stuff?
That's your perogative, no one is making you post in this section. Their is no religion. It's simply that some people take these methods and try them and find that they work exceedingly well and others don't accept those many testimonials, don't accept professionals who say they also use aiming systems and they parlay that nonacceptance into insults and slander.
Doesn't make sense. (And that goes for BOTH sides, btw -- those that attack, and those that defend.)
It makes perfect sense to me. EGO. Those that don't like aiming systems who have been so rabidly against them have a lot of their ego invested into them. And those who do use them and those who teach them have a lot of TIME invested into them. So these two sides will clash.
What happens when you remove one side though? Productive dialog happens, which was supposed to be the point of this sub-forum. THe subforum that the opponents said would die from lack of interest if not in the main forum. But it did not die and productive dialog happened.
And that just cannot stand for the guys like Lou. No one shall be allowed to happily pursue a study of aiming systems while he can interject negativity and slander turning positives into negatives along the way.
What would this thread have been WITHOUT Lou's posts. Erase those posts and the posts that have been written in response and you are left with a positive discussion of the CTE/ProOne method which IS the purpose of this sub-forum.
To put this into context, maybe if I were to go into the 14.1 forum and interject biting comments about how 9 ball is the better game into each thread you would understand my point. (I don't consider 9B to be better, it's hypothetical).
