Back-Hand English 101

[SpiderWebComm]

Well, yes, but Sigel is in print claiming that throw doesn't exist, so grains of salt are indicated.

However, in this case I think he's right about using outside WP ("whenever possible", as George Fels says). The thing is that skid happens maybe on one shot in 100. For the average player adding 1% misses does not affect their game significantly, but the errors from using side spin on most shots is a big problem. For Sigel, who might only miss 1 in 100 or 1 in 50, adding another 1% of misses due to skid is a huge deal and worth the complication of using side a lot. Or at least that seems like a reasonable argument.

He also told me deflection doesn't exist and to ignore it. When I asked him, "How so" - he explained how he stroked to eliminate the effects of it. Therefore, it's EASY to take something that Sigel said at face value and laugh at it (implying he's an idiot). However, one might find that's it's possible he's evolved beyond it and developed techniques to negate it in his calculations. If Sigel said throw doesn't exist--- that's his way of saying, "It doesn't concern him the slightest bit because he overcomes it with technique (aiming/english adjustments)."

 

[Bob Jewett]

He also told me deflection doesn't exist and to ignore it. When I asked him, "How so" - he explained how he stroked to eliminate the effects of it. Therefore, it's EASY to take something that Sigel said at face value and laugh at it (implying he's an idiot). However, one might find that's it's possible he's evolved beyond it and developed techniques to negate it in his calculations. If Sigel said throw doesn't exist--- that's his way of saying, "It doesn't concern him the slightest bit because he overcomes it with technique (aiming/english adjustments)."

That may be true, but when he starts trying to explain things he needs to explain that stuff as well. If he wants to be understood, that is. Both throw and squirt exist and are problems for new players.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

That may be true, but when he starts trying to explain things he needs to explain that stuff as well. If he wants to be understood, that is. Both throw and squirt exist and are problems for new players.

Well, yes and no. Depends on your school of thought.

If you're an analyzer in every aspect of pool - then yes. If you're a minimizer like he is, you eliminate variables and don't think about anything to the point of not caring if they exist. He tries to teach others to clear your mind and just make the ball -- the more you think, analyze and consciously compensate - the more you miss. In his world -- he only: 1) Sees ball 2) makes ball and 3) Wills CB to destination.

I think the theme of my lessons w/ him is "simplification" and "reassessment" (always reassess the plan after every shot).

He also strokes with a certain "speeeeeeeed" (in Mike's voice) for almost all of his shots.

 

[ENGLISH!]

I'm not really interested in what direction you go in because you're not an instructor and you're giving advice in the ask the instructor forum. What concerns me is how your misinformation or miscommunication may be perceived by someone innocently asking a question of instructors.

I'm not REALLY surprised by your reply. I typed a long response but then realized & CONSIDERED that this is the main forum & not the PM section. I meant & mean no harm.

 

[ENGLISH!]

I think both. As a player becomes more experienced, they might consider a third option which is using english to "prevent bad things from happening" on key shots (such as skidding, etc).

I played a good bit with Mike Sigel and he is adamant about using a hair of outside on every cut shot unless you obviously need inside for positional purposes. Of course, I asked "Why" -- he said, "Because when you've missed as many tournament winning (or affecting, I forget what he said) shots because of a skid, you learn to build-in protections into your game to prevent those things from happening in the future."

I'm sure Sigel's philosophy might seem extreme -- but he's only talking about a 1/2 tip (if that) of outside, trying to prevent skids. If someone thinks he's crazy, I challenge them to debate Sigel on the issue. His conviction on the subject is resolute.

Dave

Not that anyone cares but I agree with Sigel & what you said.

 

[ENGLISH!]

He also told me deflection doesn't exist and to ignore it. When I asked him, "How so" - he explained how he stroked to eliminate the effects of it. Therefore, it's EASY to take something that Sigel said at face value and laugh at it (implying he's an idiot). However, one might find that's it's possible he's evolved beyond it and developed techniques to negate it in his calculations. If Sigel said throw doesn't exist--- that's his way of saying, "It doesn't concern him the slightest bit because he overcomes it with technique (aiming/english adjustments)."

Again I agree.