Best Shot to Gauge Skill

[Kris_b1104]

Let me demonstrate another shot to measure your, level/stroke.

This is like the baby version of what @Bob Jewett just posted. Still a tough one though, but I think most competent players can make this in about 5-10 tries (just because the distance between the cue ball, object ball and pocket are really short). I can recall making this kind of shot against my friends for fun, but never had the balls to try it in a tourney or for $$$.

 

[mr3cushion]

This is like the baby version of what @Bob Jewett just posted. Still a tough one though, but I think most competent players can make this in about 5-10 tries. (just because the distance between the cue ball, object ball and pocket are really short)

The shorter distance makes it More difficult.

 

[Kris_b1104]

The shorter distance makes it More difficult.

A what now. Please explain

 

[mr3cushion]

A what now. Please explain

The longer the distance the CB has time to, 'Curve' into a more receptive angle into the OB.

The shot in my video is a 'Pure' hit.

 

[Kris_b1104]

The longer the distance the CB has time to, 'Curve' into a more receptive angle into the OB.

The shot in my video is a 'Pure' hit.

Understood. The shots in both videos are great. I just think the % of making Bob's shot is way lower, because of the difficulty in judging the actual hit due to the distance.

 

[BasementDweller]

The longer the distance the CB has time to, 'Curve' into a more receptive angle into the OB.

The shot in my video is a 'Pure' hit.

I'm not sure which version is more difficult but I don't think either is a stroke test. Bob's is a test of aim/swerve compensation and your's is more of a test of pure aim. Both cool shots though.

 

[The_JV]

I'm not sure which version is more difficult but I don't think either is a stroke test. Bob's is a test of aim/swerve compensation and your's is more of a test of pure aim. Both cool shots though.

Bob's is without question. "Swerve" is something that needs to be calculated for and dependent on several factors. The notion that the removal of those factors makes a shot harder is a self serving falsehood. The ball first cuts are a great example of what can be done on loose equipment though.

I agree with you that neither have much to do with gauging the consistency of one's stroke.

 

[The_JV]

Pretty much the only warm-up I do before a game is a few nice, long stop shots into a top corner, progressing closer to the side rail (I also added one big follow, and one big draw to that, as It just feels good to just hit one sweet)

Interesting... All I typically do is 30-45 degree cuts down the long rail with various amounts of various english. Lets me know how forgiving the pockets are and clearly demonstrates how the CB reacts to conditions. The later being the bigger concern. A 30 degree cut is a the same on every table. Where the CB ends up afterward is what we need to be concerned about.

 

[The_JV]

This is the sort of "arm talent" I'm talking about. I think we are guilty of watching pros play through racks where their total capability is rarely challenged and then we think we can replicate it if we only work hard enough. This is very misleading. It's only on the practice table where you can see what players can REALLY accomplish with their strokes. It can be quite sobering.

I don't understand why "arm talent" is being equated to prop shots that would never be played in competition... Sure whipping the CB around with tons of draw looks cool on some levels but this is the same crap you'll see bangers swing at after league and few beers.

I'll give you a self serving example of what I find is a better measure of one's ability to execute. Which I think is what you're after.

I played my Wednesday league last night. ...and got caught up in a little cat'n'mouse safe battle. The other details of the rack are moot, so I'll focus on the shot that broke the stalemate. My opponent left me what would have been an effective safe generally speaking. I did not have clean pottable shot. However I could see nearly all of one OB and it did have a clean path to a pocket. Pretty typical long pot playing 8. Roughly 4ft to the OB and another 4ft to the corner. However I could not directly hit the OB at the necessary angle due to a slight obstruction about a foot away. I was also limited to pocket weight spd as the cut angle would have funneled me to the wrong side of the table otherwise. So that means I can't jack up and pop the CB over the edge of the obstruction and I can't play a traditional masse'. Not that I would ever play such a masse' anyways. What I could do is aim to miss, swerve it back to hit and throw the OB on the correct path. However this would also only work if I judged the amount of squirt and subsequent swerve around the obstruction correctly. Bearing in mind, pocket weight spd.

So there's a shot that requires not only speed control, but execution of the correct amount of english (stroke), aiming with the subsequent squirt of that applied english to miss the obstruction, while factoring in the amount swerve, all to generate the necessary throw. It wasn't flashy, it didn't pop 3ft in the air and squat on a dime, it didn't come off 5 rails. ...and no one watching had any idea what went into successfully making that ball. Maybe if we were playing with a measles ball they would have wondered.

My point..., power isn't necessarily the best measure of "arm talent". I know the shot as explained above sounds more like a description of shot IQ. However the tires have to hit the road at some point. Executing the above is a credit to a player's ability to put the tip of his cue at the exact spot on the CB while controlling the pace when he does so. IMHO, finesse is what has been missing from the prop shots we've seen posted thus far and given praise to as good examples of what "arm talent" is.

Anyone can hit something hard. The majority of bangers can apply ridiculous amounts of unbridled english. It takes talent to break a horse and make it do what you want on command.

 

[George the Greek]

Sooo.... There was a guy who played snooker in my usual hangout. Real 12x6 snooker tables with the fuzzy cloth and real 2 1/16 snooker balls.

I mentioned a prop bet: put the blue on its spot and the cue ball in the jaws of the corner pocket -- well out a little so you can bridge. Pot the blue in the far corner and draw the cue ball straight back for the scratch. (Some would say screw the cue ball back for the in-off.) "I can do that." "You got ten tries for ten." He made it on the eighth try. Worth the price of admission.

But I think this is yet another shot that's poor at separating the wheat from the chaff. Might as well try cutting a spotted ball into your pocket from the jaws of your opponent's pocket.

I used to do that shot as a practice routine quite often. The stun and follow thru was easy but I struggled a bit on the draw shot trying to scratch. I could make both balls with my eyes closed and one handed.

 

[BasementDweller]

I don't understand why "arm talent" is being equated to prop shots that would never be played in competition... Sure whipping the CB around with tons of draw looks cool on some levels but this is the same crap you'll see bangers swing at after league and few beers.

High-level players showing off their talent while shooting difficult shots isn't the same thing as a banger hitting the ball hard! I don't believe you actually think it's the same thing. On the practice table the high-level player is showing us that their capability is greater than we get to see on the game table. This increased capability is always there, beneath the surface, and they are therefore always playing an easier game than we are. That's just how capability works. If a player is playing near their max capability and the other closer to 50%, of course with all else being equal, then they will be at an advantage.

I'll give you a self serving example of what I find is a better measure of one's ability to execute. Which I think is what you're after.

I played my Wednesday league last night. ...and got caught up in a little cat'n'mouse safe battle. The other details of the rack are moot, so I'll focus on the shot that broke the stalemate. My opponent left me what would have been an effective safe generally speaking. I did not have clean pottable shot. However I could see nearly all of one OB and it did have a clean path to a pocket. Pretty typical long pot playing 8. Roughly 4ft to the OB and another 4ft to the corner. However I could not directly hit the OB at the necessary angle due to a slight obstruction about a foot away. I was also limited to pocket weight spd as the cut angle would have funneled me to the wrong side of the table otherwise. So that means I can't jack up and pop the CB over the edge of the obstruction and I can't play a traditional masse'. Not that I would ever play such a masse' anyways. What I could do is aim to miss, swerve it back to hit and throw the OB on the correct path. However this would also only work if I judged the amount of squirt and subsequent swerve around the obstruction correctly. Bearing in mind, pocket weight spd.

So there's a shot that requires not only speed control, but execution of the correct amount of english (stroke), aiming with the subsequent squirt of that applied english to miss the obstruction, while factoring in the amount swerve, all to generate the necessary throw. It wasn't flashy, it didn't pop 3ft in the air and squat on a dime, it didn't come off 5 rails. ...and no one watching had any idea what went into successfully making that ball. Maybe if we were playing with a measles ball they would have wondered.

My point..., power isn't necessarily the best measure of "arm talent". I know the shot as explained above sounds more like a description of shot IQ. However the tires have to hit the road at some point. Executing the above is a credit to a player's ability to put the tip of his cue at the exact spot on the CB while controlling the pace when he does so. IMHO, finesse is what has been missing from the prop shots we've seen posted thus far and given praise to as good examples of what "arm talent" is.

Anyone can hit something hard. The majority of bangers can apply ridiculous amounts of unbridled english. It takes talent to break a horse and make it do what you want on command.

A cool shot no doubt and it certainly displays a certain level of talent but your last paragraph sums up MY position. Yes bangers can hit the ball hard and some can apply a lot of English, but do they have the talent to master it? Most can't.

Note
This thread has evolved to include gaffe shots. That wasn't my intention. I was more interested in usable but difficult shots.

 

[The_JV]

High-level players showing off their talent while shooting difficult shots isn't the same thing as a banger hitting the ball hard! I don't believe you actually think it's the same thing.

No, but the distinction of "arm talent" is being awarded to prop/circus shots that will likely never appear in competitive game play. Using such shots as a measure of skill is pointless in my personal opinion. "Hey, what can you do when it means absolutely nothing..?"

The best examples of a viable benchmark in this thread contained the variable of CB control. Much like the long pot, stop shot without CB rotation. That shot is all about tip placement accuracy and near zero bearing on how hard you can hit it. ...and has the added bonus of something players need to be able to do in regular game play.

Lets reset and remind ourselves we're talking about the best shot to gauge skill.

On the practice table the high-level player is showing us that their capability is greater than we get to see on the game table. This increased capability is always there, beneath the surface, and they are therefore always playing an easier game than we are. That's just how capability works.

That's an easy correlation to make, but it's not necessarily accurate. You're making a generality based on specific ability. DeLuna for example has videos out there showing massive capability in drawing the CB. That hasn't lead to many major wins has it...? His talent in this regard hasn't made winning any easier for him.

I totally agree that pros have abilities far greater than we witness in competitive play. However this in all aspects of the game. Including decision making on low % percentage shots.

If a player is playing near their max capability and the other closer to 50%, of course with all else being equal, then they will be at an advantage.

This^^^ is almost a throw away remark....lol. I will concede that if literally all variables are equal save growth toward some imaginary "max capability" hard ceiling. Then yes the person closer to that hard talent ceiling has an advantage. The problem is you're convinced this max capability is dependent on shot making, and your argument is based on all other variables being identical.

I could counter and say that if one player was at 100% max capability in shot making but near 50% in all other aspects. Then the 75% player across the board will have an advantage. Kinda obvious and pointless.

A cool shot no doubt and it certainly displays a certain level of talent but your last paragraph sums up MY position. Yes bangers can hit the ball hard and some can apply a lot of English, but do they have the talent to master it? Most can't.

You'd have to define "master", I guess...., ....and I would quantify what I think a banger is.

Note
This thread has evolved to include gaffe shots. That wasn't my intention. I was more interested in usable but difficult shots.

 

[Mensabum]

This may have been mentioned and I missed it, but a good shot would be a straight in to the corner pocket from mid table using high right or left making the cue ball go 2 rails and out to a third.
If they can stroke one off, it'll give you a pretty good idea of talent level.

 

[Flakeandrun]

This may have been mentioned and I missed it, but a good shot would be a straight in to the corner pocket from mid table using high right or left making the cue ball go 2 rails and out to a third.
If they can stroke one off, it'll give you a pretty good idea of talent level.

I stroke one off once a day. I'm quite talented at it.

I also agree with you regarding the forced follow. This is a good shot prior to playing a match, greases the groove.

 

[Mensabum]

I stroke one off once a day. I'm quite talented at it.

I also agree with you regarding the forced follow. This is a good shot prior to playing a match, greases the groove.

I can't handle once a day anymore.
Arm gets tired.
You're abso right about those shots. Add to anyone's warm up and it puts how you're hitting 'em in perspective real fast. I do those and straight in follows to make sure they're going where I aim 'em.
the follow shots will get you out of a jam when you blow shape like no other shot. Cheat the pocket and you can vary the angle even more.
I Prefer wood shafts for these, as I seem to get more juice than the CFs I have. Just my opinion, of course, but seems to apply to my stroke type.

 

[ShootingArts]

One shot, one time, spot to spot without scratching might be my choice. Preferably with twenty bucks bet on that one shot. No second tries, nobody else trying the same shot, no way to get your money back if you miss that one shot.

I don't really care if they pocket the shot. Most bar room players are better than 30% on that shot, maybe as high as 50% although not with twenty bucks on the line. What I want to see is the player's actions around the table, how comfortable he is shooting this shot, and how far the cue ball misses the other corner pocket. How close the cue ball comes to scratching is the part of the shot I will be watching. Shooting for center pocket with the object ball and hitting center cue ball gives the best chance of pocketing the object ball and the cue ball will hit just short of the other corner pocket and two corners back out.

Many very solid shooters hit with just a touch of draw so an inch or two shorter of the corner pocket by the cue ball might be a warning too. Six inches or more is a scared shooter taking away some of the chance of making the object ball to protect the cue ball that a strong player already knows doesn't need protecting.

Exceptions to everything but with one shot to learn all I can about a player this would be my choice. I'll be watching him from the time he walks towards his cue and I may have some strong tells before he picks up his cue. He is going to chalk before this one shot for twenty bucks although he doesn't need to. How does he chalk? His own chalk or house chalk? How does he approach the table? Stance and stroke? How hard does he hit this shot?

A gambler might send out very mixed signals trying to look like a banger. That is a huge warning in itself. Their skill level should be roughly equal in all of the tasks surrounding shooting pool. I have rated the player fairly closely before they hit the cue ball. The shot itself is mostly confirmation of what I already know.

Hu

 

[DeadStick]

How close the cue ball comes to scratching is the part of the shot I will be watching. Shooting for center pocket with the object ball and hitting center cue ball gives the best chance of pocketing the object ball and the cue ball will hit just short of the other corner pocket and two corners back out.

Many very solid shooters hit with just a touch of draw so an inch or two shorter of the corner pocket by the cue ball might be a warning too. Six inches or more is a scared shooter taking away some of the chance of making the object ball to protect the cue ball that a strong player already knows doesn't need protecting.

I'm not sure why anyone would stun that shot - it's a dead scratch.

A rolling cue ball with medium speed (the most accurate way to hit a CB) gets the job done easily, going safely long of the corner by 3/4 diamond:

While a draw, to try to cheat the scratch, needs to be hit perfectly, at the miscue limit, with the perfect touch to come just barely short of the scratch. Hit it too hard, or not low enough, and it's a scratch:

 

[ShootingArts]

I'm not sure why anyone would stun that shot - it's a dead scratch.

A rolling cue ball with medium speed (the most accurate way to hit a CB) gets the job done easily, going safely long of the corner by 3/4 diamond:
View attachment 740924

While a draw, to try to cheat the scratch, needs to be hit perfectly, at the miscue limit, with the perfect touch to come just barely short of the scratch. Hit it too hard, or not low enough, and it's a scratch:
View attachment 740925

I found that a center cue ball hit pocketed the object ball dead center and had the cue ball hit a gnat's ass short of the other corner or perhaps on the point, either way, not a scratch shot. This was a shot I used to stir up action when nobody would gamble for anything when I went in a place.

I would start shooting the shot myself, not doing too well, one in four or five. Soon somebody wanted to show me how it was done and was willing to put up a dollar a shot alternating shooters. Might end up with three or four of us taking turns with others on the sidelines waiting to get in. Now the people that wouldn't bet a beer on a game are betting more than fifteen dollars a rack and happy! Nothing like Mr Spot Shot but I have shot that shot many hundreds, probably many thousands of times. I practiced it thirty minutes or so a few times a week so I was ready when I needed it to stir up action. Soon somebody wanted to play "real pool" to get their money back and I was rolling.

There were times when I made pretty decent money at the spot shot itself. When people pointed out I was making the shot a lot more often than I was earlier the answer was "sure, I have been practicing it for an hour now."

It is a strong gaffe shot as few people practice it, particularly bar room denizens. The main thing was to miss or scratch enough to keep the other shooters happy.

Hu

 

[alphadog]

Here is my take on most shots posted.
Some are more of a test of knowledge then ability.

I believe draw is one thing that slightly advanced players are better at then follow. I am not going to say they are good at it or have great control but they use it more then follow. So a shot with follow would be a better test then draw.

A stun run thru shot from say 4 diamonds between cueball and object ball and wanting say 4" of forward movement on whitey would be a good test of knowledge and cueing.

 

[Island Drive]

Full disclosure, this is a direct copy of a post from @BasementDweller

I thought it would make a good thread to talk about.

If I had a room full of players and I had to separate them by skill level and the only information I got came from observing them all shoot one shot of my choice, what shot would I choose? I wouldn't pick an intricate positional route, instead I'd probably just lineup a long straight in shot and tell them to draw it back into the corner pocket. How they cued it would tell me all I needed to know.

What shot would be most telling?

I'd do a force follow shot.