Proposed TAR - TOI VS NO AIMING SYSTEM

[Island Drive]

The above words, are ALL yours..I just edited out the superfluous stuff, (aka BS) to make it more understandable !..CJ, this is an area, that you REALLY,REALLY,REALLY need to work on !..

The only reason I resorted to 'cartoons', is because your 'know it all' attitude, was not only boring, (and so short-sighted) it became LAUGHABLE !..... YOU sir, are the only "ADVANCED" player, who cannot see how weak, and unsustainable, your argument really is !

Due to your unbelievable stubborness, I am going to again use the 'Coyote/Roadrunner' analogy..until it sinks in, and you come to your senses !....As I said before,..I am here to have fun..NOT to fight windmills. (as will be Wiley Coyote's role FOREVER !)..I could have used
'Tom and Jerry' cartoon's, same analogy..but the name 'Wil-ey', just seemed to fit better !

The Roadrunner

View attachment 299810

Jetterville Bobby Goad would agree. He's the original Pinkies owner. And we must Not forget Diane, his wife.

 

[Island Drive]

I can tell you, being a good banker was a big advantage playing two foul on the bar boxes back then. You sure got to see some great shots back in the 2 shot days. Allen Hopkins was another great 2 shot roll out player.

Allen is very good at moving stuff around.

 

[Island Drive]

Correction...I have NEVER, ever played 2 shot foul "ball in hand" ...It was ALWAYS ball in hand "in the kitchen only"!..If the lowest # ball was in the kitchen too, it spotted up !

PS,,Of course, I could be wrong !..I only played it that way, for the 50 yrs. prior to those stupid 'Texas Express' rules coming out !

In two foul there were also, other rules. If it was your shot and you intentionally pocketed the cue ball, the incoming player would have BIH in the kitchen, NOT anywhere, because it was your first scratch.

 

[Ken_4fun]

Efren is, without a doubt the best all around pool player that ever lived. His best game is straight rail "balkline" billiards. When he combined his knowledge in billiards with his knowledge in rotation he created an unbeatable one pocket game.

One pocket, 9 Ball and Straight Pool on a 10' table is a much more difficult game because of the extra distance. You have to hit everything approximately 20% firmer and the shots are longer on the average - of course this is all common sense to the pocket billiard afishionado. 'The 10' Game is the Teacher'

We'll have to agree to disagree. Efren was at my pool room when I was playing my best on the 10' table and wouldn't play me even. You can scoff at this all you want, I'm certainly not going to try to stop you, but the facts are the facts.

On a 10' table Efren would have had his hands full playing Earl or me one pocket. On a 9' table we would have needed 8/6, but that's a table you can squeeze someone to death.The way Shane plays right now Efren would NEVER have beaten him playing on a 10' table. Again, you can have your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts.
The fact is Efren was never that great off the end rail and his stroke wasn't exactly powerful....of course he could make up for it with his finesse and cue ball control, although on a 10' table that would NOT hold up under the gun.

I have plenty of people that were there, a whole room full as a matter of fact, Roger Griffis was going to go in with me,(Roger played Efren and beat him that night on a 9' table with 10/5) and Tommy Rae was putting up money as well to see me play Efren EVEN on the 10' table. At that time no one would consider playing me even 9 Ball on the 10' table either (one foul or two foul).

The Truth will set you free.

There is a WORLD of difference between these two posts.

Earl, I have seen play one pocket. I have not seen you play one pocket, but if you play near Earls speed in one pocket....

Let's just say .... nevermind....believe whatever you want to believe.

Ken

 

[jimmyg]

We'll have to agree to disagree. Efren was at my pool room when I was playing my best on the 10' table and wouldn't play me even. You can scoff at this all you want, I'm certainly not going to try to stop you, but the facts are the facts.

On a 10' table Efren would have had his hands full playing Earl or me one pocket. On a 9' table we would have needed 8/6, but that's a table you can squeeze someone to death.The way Shane plays right now Efren would NEVER have beaten him playing on a 10' table. Again, you can have your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts.
The fact is Efren was never that great off the end rail and his stroke wasn't exactly powerful....of course he could make up for it with his finesse and cue ball control, although on a 10' table that would NOT hold up under the gun.

I have plenty of people that were there, a whole room full as a matter of fact, Roger Griffis was going to go in with me,(Roger played Efren and beat him that night on a 9' table with 10/5) and Tommy Rae was putting up money as well to see me play Efren EVEN on the 10' table. At that time no one would consider playing me even 9 Ball on the 10' table either (one foul or two foul).

The Truth will set you free.

Often when we spend way too much time "spinning" we become too dizzy to realize that we have confused our own hypothetical or conjecture with fact.

"Would have" and "would NEVER have" are not fact. :nono:

J

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Time out for a commercial:

 

[Rusty C]

Correction...I have NEVER, ever played 2 shot foul "ball in hand" ...It was ALWAYS ball in hand "in the kitchen only"!..If the lowest # ball was in the kitchen too, it spotted up !

PS,,Of course, I could be wrong !..I only played it that way, for the 50 yrs. prior to those stupid 'Texas Express' rules coming out !

Thats funny,we've been saying how great 2 foul roll out is,and everybody has forgotten the rules.

 

[row21097]

What do you think about the ability to manage 46 simultaneous games of blindfold chess in a 24-hour period (winning or drawing in all but two of them), which is the current world record? This feat requires forming a mental picture of each 64-square game board and all its pieces for every move that is made by either party.

Makes the complexities of any cue sport seem kinda tame, doesn't it?

BTW I failed to mention that the current record for simultaneous blind pool games is zero.

To be clear I am not a scientist, but I have a working familiarity with memory systems (I read and used extensively the teachings of "the memory Book" in college). The distinction, I believe, is in the use of "working" memory.

My position on the subject of the complexity and difficulty of the 9B / 1P remains that both games can easily stretch any human's brain beyond the point where judgement is impaired.

Bert

 

[supergreenman]

All I can tell you about your last post is that if I EVER saw Efren playing you or Earl even One Pocket any time up until the last few years, I would empty out betting on him! How's that for speculating?

Your honor, I have no further questions for the witness............

 

[CJ Wiley]

it can be decided by a gentlemen's agreement at the start of the match.

I don't know what "any two fouls" means. The only way I have played or seen played is two consecutive fouls by the same player. For example, a guy pushes out to a thin cut. I tell him to shoot again. He misses the entire ball or scratches. Ball in hand for me.

"Any Two Fouls" means if your opponent rolls out and and you accept the shot and scratch or foul it's "ball in hand anywhere on the table".

I've played thousands of games both ways and I prefer "any two fouls" myself because I bank, cut, jump and shoot off the end rail equally, but if someone has a weakness they would want the opportunity to "re roll out". This does slow the games down a percentage of the time.

The PURE rules are "Two Fouls by the Same Person" - just like "3 fouls" and "touching or base of the ball" it can be decided by a gentlemen's agreement at the start of the match.

 

[CJ Wiley]

I assure you we "real eyes" the difference

Often when we spend way too much time "spinning" we become too dizzy to realize that we have confused our own hypothetical or conjecture with fact.

"Would have" and "would NEVER have" are not fact. :nono:

J

Thanks for your contribution and observations, I assure you we "real eyes" the difference.

 

[CJ Wiley]

At the highest levels the games are selectively subconscious

To be clear I am not a scientist, but I have a working familiarity with memory systems (I read and used extensively the teachings of "the memory Book" in college). The distinction, I believe, is in the use of "working" memory.

My position on the subject of the complexity and difficulty of the 9B / 1P remains that both games can easily stretch any human's brain beyond the point where judgement is impaired.

Bert

We will have to agree to disagree on this point.

At the highest levels the games are selectively subconscious and judgement is therefore not impaired.

"The Player and Shot Become One" (not shots)

 

[Neil]

"Any Two Fouls" means if your opponent rolls out and and you accept the shot and scratch or foul it's "ball in hand anywhere on the table".

I've played thousands of games both ways and I prefer "any two fouls" myself because I bank, cut, jump and shoot off the end rail equally, but if someone has a weakness they would want the opportunity to "re roll out". This does slow the games down a percentage of the time.

The PURE rules are "Two Fouls by the Same Person" - just like "3 fouls" and "touching or base of the ball" it can be decided by a gentlemen's agreement at the start of the match.

Playing any two fouls and then ball in hand anywhere is a suckers game. You miss and get safe by accident. I foul by just pushing out to a lock up safe. You foul, I get ball in hand and run out. Easier to play than just playing one foul.

Back when I played two foul, it was two consecutive fouls by the same person. Then you got BIH in the kitchen.

 

[CJ Wiley]

I believe you make valid points.

I don't play checkers, but I know it's a very complex game at the highest level. There's a game called 10-square draughts which is played on a board that has 10 squares to a side, or 100 total squares vs. 64 on a regular board. This is orders of magnitude more complex than ordinary checkers. The late great Russian chess grandmaster Tigran Petrosian not only played the game but wrote extensively about it, so it must be a very serious game.

Personally, I think that pool is 90% mental at the highest levels. Players who can let go and trust the unconscious mind to guide the body will always have a big advantage over players who try to control everything using the conscious mind. As BeiberLvr mentioned in an earlier posts, much of this is innate and cannot be taught. Physical repetition and conditioning will only take you so far. Being a natural athlete and having great eyesight may be helpful, but the real inborn talent likely lies more in the way we are hardwired to perform the mental aspects of the game.

I believe you make valid points.

For me the game is 90% physical, 10% mental and through "perfect practice" inverts to where it's 90% mental, 10% physical although the physical part must be kept strong because at the highest levels they're really one - the mind, body and spirit (intellect) must become one to reach your maximum potential and enter the "playing zone".

 

[CJ Wiley]

Either set of rules is FAR superior to "One Foul Ball in Hand" rules..

Playing any two fouls and then ball in hand anywhere is a suckers game. You miss and get safe by accident. I foul by just pushing out to a lock up safe. You foul, I get ball in hand and run out. Easier to play than just playing one foul.

Back when I played two foul, it was two consecutive fouls by the same person. Then you got BIH in the kitchen.

They used to play a variety of ways depending on what part of the country we were in, This game puts a lot of spot shots back in the game, as well as "two way shots". You do need to punish the player that commits two fouls in a row though....his opponent should bet "ball in hand anywhere on the table".

Either set of rules is FAR superior to "One Foul Ball in Hand" rules....it's not even close!!!

 

[Bambu]

Playing any two fouls and then ball in hand anywhere is a suckers game. You miss and get safe by accident. I foul by just pushing out to a lock up safe. You foul, I get ball in hand and run out. Easier to play than just playing one foul.

Back when I played two foul, it was two consecutive fouls by the same person. Then you got BIH in the kitchen.

That only works if your opponent doesn't see the safety that you do. He locks you up on your own push a couple of times, and you learn real quick what your opponent can really see.

 

[SJDinPHX]

To be clear I am not a scientist, but I have a working familiarity with memory systems (I read and used extensively the teachings of "the memory Book" in college). The distinction, I believe, is in the use of "working" memory.

My position on the subject of the complexity and difficulty of the 9B / 1P remains that both games can easily stretch any human's brain beyond the point where judgement is impaired.

Bert

Sir, I don't believe counting from 1 to 9, would be too complex ! (for the average 4 yr. old that is)... But, it might be a little tough for a 'coyote' ! :embarrassed2:

 

[CJ Wiley]

"There are no hard shots, or easy shots, there is just one shot"

Sir, I don't believe counting from 1 to 9, would be too complex ! (for the average 4 yr. old that is)... But, it might be a little tough for a 'coyote' ! :embarrassed2:

"There are no hard shots, or easy shots, there is just one shot"

 

[Rusty C]

They used to play either way depending on what part of the country we were in, and yes, I agree. This game puts a lot of spot shots back in the game, as well as "two way shots".

Either set of rules is FAR superior to "One Foul Ball in Hand" rules....it's not even close!!!

Your wright you did have to get the rules straight before you flipped the coin,.But I don't ever remember it being played,the way SJD played,when you did get 2 fouls on your opponent,you only got to put the cue ball behind the line.That does'nt make much sense to me.

 

[CJ Wiley]

not apparent, yet visible to those that have "eyes that can see".

That only works if your opponent doesn't see the safety that you do. He locks you up on your own push a couple of times, and you learn real quick what your opponent can really see.

That's exactly right, and then it becomes a sparring match of strategic expertise. This is another clue to why 'Two Shot Shoot Out' is more difficult than 'One Pocket' - after all there's only one shot and it's up to the player to maximize what is done with this particular shot - all games are the identical in this simple respect.

There's 3 levels to playing pocket billiards at the highest level - there's the surface structure, that's apparent to everyone that watches - there's the deep structure, that's apparent to only the advanced and experienced players - and then there's the subconscious structure that's not apparent, yet visible to those that have "eyes that can see". The Game is the Teacher