Pool Myths Explained

[dr_dave]

I fear most will not even bother reading them, let alone the links provided with them.

I think people who are truly interested in specific myths (like you) will check out the Top 100 Myths page and even check out the links.

FYI, I'll reply to your comments and suggestion individually. Here's the first:

#47- Agree and disagree with it. Your reasoning behind your statement is faulty. I would say that a little english is required often because most tend to get out of line a little. Just because the pros use english a lot, doesn't equate to not being able to play without english.

Below is my current version of that myth and explanation. I think it is more appropriate and clear. Do you agree?

47. English is not required often in top-level play.

This is a common misconception; but in reality, top players use sidespin (often only in small amounts) frequently in their games (e.g., to make small corrections when they get out of line, to help the CB come more into the line of the next shot, to send the CB multiple rails with ease and in natural directions, to help pocket steep rail cut shots, to change the angle of a kick, to throw a ball in, to curve the CB slightly, etc.).

PS: Thank you for the comments and suggestions. I appreciate it, and I welcome the same from others.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... if you're going to masse' a ball ( a long one ) , how do you "aim" that ?
All you have is a visualization of how the cue ball is going to travel after you masse' it .

Umm.... Why don't you use the masse aiming method first described by Coriolis and explained more recently in Byrne's books?

 

[dr_dave]

#34- Maybe word the myth, or the definition better. Your reply agrees with the actual statement of the "myth", because the myth as stated is true. The cb does always go in the direction of the tangent line. However, it can be changed to later go forward or backwards from that line.

Here's my edited version, which I think is better (although, you still might not like it):

34. The CB always heads in the tangent-line direction.

The CB heads and persists along the tangent-line direction only for a stun shot (see the 90 degree rule). For shots with top or bottom spin, the CB initially heads in the tangent-line direction, but it curves away (see the 30 degree rule and the draw-shot trisect system); and at slow speed, it curves almost immediately (see CB path speed effects) to where the tangent-line motion isn't even noticeable.

 

[SJDinPHX]

Regarding aiming systems,.....Bottom line is that everyone is a unique individual whose brain attempts to arrive at the desired outcome in the most efficient way possible for that person. Neither method (feel or system) is better; it's simply what happens to work for that individual.

Mr. bdorman, No disrespect intended... I can tell by your lengthy post, and all the big words you used so eloquently, your IQ is much higher than mine !..However, your "bottom line" statement, tells me you had better stick to typing, as I can tell you are definitely NOT an accomplished pool player... NO top player would ever agree with your summation !...IE; "It takes one, to know one", will always be the overriding factor, in ANY skilled endeavor !

SJD

PS..Maybe you are an excellent basketball player, and you could mount a sensible argument with Michael Jordan, but it ain't workin' with pool ! Sorry

 

[dr_dave]

Umm.... Why don't you use the masse aiming method first described by Coriolis and explained more recently in Byrne's books?

For those interested, numerous video demonstrations and instructional articles dealing with this topic can be found here:

masse-shot aiming resource page

That Coriolis was a smart guy. (... and so is Byrne.)

Enjoy,
Dave

 

[Neil]

I think people who are truly interested in specific myths (like you) will check out the Top 100 Myths page and even check out the links.

FYI, I'll reply to your comments and suggestion individually. Here's the first:



Below is my current version of that myth and explanation. I think it is more appropriate and clear. Do you agree?

47. English is not required often in top-level play.

This is a common misconception; but in reality, top players use sidespin (often only in small amounts) frequently in their games (e.g., to make small corrections when they get out of line, to help the CB come more into the line of the next shot, to send the CB multiple rails with ease and in natural directions, to help pocket steep rail cut shots, to change the angle of a kick, to throw a ball in, to curve the CB slightly, etc.).

PS: Thank you for the comments and suggestions. I appreciate it, and I welcome the same from others.

Sounds perfect!

 

[dr_dave]

#32- Actually, most of the aiming system founders/sellers make actual claims. (not all, one in particular ....won't go there....
Most of the outrageous claims are actually started by misquotes and false statements by those against aiming systems.

Sorry, I'm sticking to this one, based on all of the claims and marketing statements I've heard and read over these many years:

32. Marketing information and claims concerning "aiming systems" are usually modest and totally realistic.

Unfortunately, "aiming systems" promotion sometimes involves exaggerated "marketing claims" (e.g., see the DAM marketing spoof).

 

[Neil]

Mr. bdorman, No disrespect intended... I can tell by your lengthy post, and all the big words you used so eloquently, your IQ is much higher than mine !..However, your "bottom line" statement, tells me you had better stick to typing, as I can tell you are definitely NOT an accomplished pool player... NO top player would ever agree with your summation !...IE; "It takes one, to know one", will always be the overriding factor, in ANY skilled endeavor !

SJD

PS..Maybe you are an excellent basketball player, and you could mount a sensible argument with Michael Jordan, but it ain't workin' with pool ! Sorry

Either you have missed how Shane VB aims, or you think he isn't a top player yet.

 

[Neil]

Here's my edited version, which I think is better (although, you still might not like it):

34. The CB always heads in the tangent-line direction.

The CB heads and persists along the tangent-line direction only for a stun shot (see the 90 degree rule). For shots with top or bottom spin, the CB initially heads in the tangent-line direction, but it curves away (see the 30 degree rule and the draw-shot trisect system); and at slow speed, it curves almost immediately (see CB path speed effects) to where the tangent-line motion isn't even noticeable.

I do fully agree with it now. Worded much clearer to describe what actually happens.

 

[dr_dave]

#31- Your reply is just not true for ALL aiming systems, but is true for SOME aiming systems.

I've made some slight changes to this one, but the message isn't any different. I think we will need to agree to disagree on this one:

31. Aiming systems that use a limited number of lines of aim or aiming alignments can be used to pocket shots over a wide range of cut angles without adjusting by intuition or "feel" (either consciously or subconsciously) between the references.

Unfortunately, this is simply not true (see limited lines of aim and CTE analysis and evaluation).

 

[Neil]

Sorry, I'm sticking to this one, based on all of the claims and marketing statements I've heard and read over these many years:

32. Marketing information and claims concerning "aiming systems" are usually modest and totally realistic.

Unfortunately, "aiming systems" promotion sometimes involves exaggerated "marketing claims" (e.g., see the DAM marketing spoof).

Figured you would.

 

[Neil]

I've made some slight changes to this one, but the message isn't any different. I think we will need to agree to disagree on this one:

31. Aiming systems that use a limited number of lines of aim or aiming alignments can be used to pocket shots over a wide range of cut angles without adjusting by intuition or "feel" (either consciously or subconsciously) between the references.

Unfortunately, this is simply not true (see limited lines of aim and CTE analysis and evaluation).

Some day you will change your mind.:thumbup:

 

[dr_dave]

#29- I feel your statement is a little misleading. If you look for center pocket using the points as your reference, you will always find center pocket. However, that does not equate to center pocket remains the same for all shot angles. Using the points for reference, you will always see center pocket, but that center may be the right facing, to the back of the pocket, all the way to the left facing. And, the closer you are to a side rail, the smaller the pocket opening actually is.

Neil,

Have you checked out the articles from both me and Bob Jewett available via the link? The illustrations and experimental data clearly show that the effective center of the pocket isn't always directly between the pocket points. This is particularly true on standard Valley/Dynamo "bar boxes" at shallow angles into corner pockets.

29. The best place to aim at a pocket is always the center between the pocket points.

The effective "center" of the pocket changes with speed and angle (see pocket "size" and "center"). Also, sometimes the pocket needs to be "cheated" (with the OB aimed away from the center of the pocket) for CB control purposes.

 

[dr_dave]

#27- Not really true. Just because a pro can't describe exactly how he aims, does not mean he doesn't have a consistent way of how he sees the shot. The mere fact that one does something in a consistent way means that it is a system. So, all pros actually use some type of system to aim. They just don't know what it is called, or it doesn't yet have a name for the way they do it.

Neil,

I've made significant changes to this one; although the message is still similar. What do you or others think?

27. Pros have a secret "aiming system."

This is simply not true. There is no silver-bullet “aiming system” that will magically allow you to pocket shots with pro-level consistency. Pros aim virtually all shots subconsciously by instinct, intuition, and feel based on countless past hours of practice and successful experience (see "How the Pros Aim"). They typically do not use any particular prescribed “aiming system.” Although, they do usually have a consistent and purposeful pre-shot routine to help ensure they aim and align accurately and consistently. The only way to truly improve your aiming accuracy and consistency is through dedicated and smart practice. Success comes from having a consistent and purposeful pre-shot routine, a reliable and accurate stroke, and a long history of experience.

 

[dr_dave]

#18- I don't buy the theory that most misses are due to faulty alignment and not the stroke. Your own response even states it. The stroke is being able to accurately deliver the cue on the intended line of aim. Very few people actually hit the cb exactly where they intend to hit it. Thereby applying the unintentional english, squirt and swerve you mentioned. Therefore, their stroke is faulty.

This might be another one where we need to agree to disagree. Here's the latest version:

18. Most misses are caused by a bad stroke.

For intermediate to advanced players, most misses are probably due to aim and alignment errors rather than stroking errors. "Alignment" involves both placing the cue in the desired direction and placing the tip at the desired position on the CB. Also, when using intentional sidespin, many misses are due to an incomplete understanding of how to accurately compensate for squirt, swerve, and throw. (see aim compensation for squirt, swerve, and throw).

 

[Hits 'em Hard]

What is a disservice is your posting when your reading comprehension is so low. Did I say that follow-through wasn't important? NO! He stated that the cb can not even move without followthrough. That is patently false. And if you think it is true, you have a lot of studying to do. Try looking at Dr. Daves list and you will find it there. Then click on the link provided and learn something.

Here's a simple test for you to prove it false: put a coin on the table, slide another coin into it. The "cue" coin stops dead, the "cb" coin moves.

So throughout this thread the biggest problem seems to be what the personal definition of the matter is. The general majority of opinions on why something is a myth is because they think that it's an absolute fact with no chance for re-interpretation. I believe this to be a problem of when the person got told/read of this 'myth' they were of low enough skill level to not fully comprehend it. Some things are said in order to get a larger point across. I'm reminded of when Dr. Cue and Dr. Popper were here for a little exhibition/lessons a while back. Dr. Cue was going over using a mirror for learning banks. Great information for a beginner, but in the grand scheme of things it's such specific information that it takes a while to know when and where to use it. So until that point some lower skill level people believe certain things to be a myth because the words they associate with the topic truly aren't meant for that topic.

Could the 'myths' that some believe be restated to no longer be the 'myth' it is. Accelerating through the cue ball for draw is said because people have trouble striking a smooth follow through. The word accelerating helps their perception of what's going on. Everytime I start having my cue ball not take the right path, the only words anyone says to me is smoothness. "You didn't hit smoothly through the ball." It's like driving a car in reverse then just jamming it into first and going forward. The car is going to react violently and jerky. Whereas if you let the car come to a stop then start going in first, the smoothness of the transition helps with better acceleration. Same for a stroke. The smoothness back to a pause before going forward helps get better cue ball action than just slamming through. For people who know what their doing, smoothness has a better translation to help them fix their problem acceleration does.

 

[dr_dave]

#11- This one puzzles me. I have yet to find a single instructor that states that. The only ones I ever hear say that are the ones that are against getting instruction and almost always use that as a catch phrase to make some kind of point.

I've changed the wording on this some. Is it any better now?

11. There is a "proper" or "conventional" stance that is most effective for most people.

The ideal stance for each individual (feet positions and directions, knee bend, body bend and direction, head height and position, arm position relative to the body, etc.) can be very different from one person to the next based on stability, comfort, anatomy, and stroke clearance requirements (see stance technique advice).

 

[Hits 'em Hard]

I've changed the wording on this some. Is it any better now?

11. There is a "proper" or "conventional" stance that is most effective for most people.

The ideal stance for each individual (feet positions and directions, knee bend, body bend and direction, head height and position, arm position relative to the body, etc.) can be very different from one person to the next based on stability, comfort, anatomy, and stroke clearance requirements (see stance technique advice).

"There is no proper way to stand to deliver the cue stick to the cue ball. There are ways that are more effective than others, but no one 'correct' way. But there is only one way that the cue tip can contact the cue ball for the desired outcome."

 

[Neil]

Neil,

Have you checked out the articles from both me and Bob Jewett available via the link? The illustrations and experimental data clearly show that the effective center of the pocket isn't always directly between the pocket points. This is particularly true on standard Valley/Dynamo "bar boxes" at shallow angles into corner pockets.

29. The best place to aim at a pocket is always the center between the pocket points.

The effective "center" of the pocket changes with speed and angle (see pocket "size" and "center"). Also, sometimes the pocket needs to be "cheated" (with the OB aimed away from the center of the pocket) for CB control purposes.

Yes, I have. While I agree that the "effective" angle can include the rail when using slower speeds, and the ball may still be pocketed, I don't count the rail as part of the pocket. In my world, if you (or I) hit the rail unintentionally, you missed the pocket and got lucky.

I only count the actual opening as the pocket. I don't count the rail anymore than I would include any other bank shot as being a part of the pocket.

Quite possible we will have to agree to disagree on this one also.

 

[Neil]

I've changed the wording on this some. Is it any better now?

11. There is a "proper" or "conventional" stance that is most effective for most people.

The ideal stance for each individual (feet positions and directions, knee bend, body bend and direction, head height and position, arm position relative to the body, etc.) can be very different from one person to the next based on stability, comfort, anatomy, and stroke clearance requirements (see stance technique advice).

Much better, thanks!