The bet is to develop a straight stroke.
"C" Player uses "Feel" to beat the ghost 9-1
- Thread starter iusedtoberich
- Start date
The bet is to develop a straight stroke.
We can bet on that too. Lots of people can stroke like ronnie.
But then it isnt all about the stroke is it?
Stephen Hendry, Steve Davis, John Higgins, and well, pretty much every top player alive.
Superimpose them stroking the ball right over Ronnie and the cue movement will be virtually identical.
Now what you PROBABLY mean is that Ronnie can do it under pressure more often. That's a different aspect.
Or you COULD mean that Ronnie hits the ball with more touch than most others which is ALSO another aspect of the game.
Who knows really what you mean. When I say stroke I mean the act of moving the cue forward to strike the cue ball at the intended spot. The line of travel is due to the stroke in my opinion.
Obviously you think differently so please enlighten us.
Pathetic Shark
Banned
Three of the greatest snooker players ever does not equal "a lot of people". Neither does every elite snooker player alive for that matter.
lol
We can just bet on this. I know that in snooker some coaches use software to analyze the player's strokes.
I will bet that I can find 30 snooker players who have IDENTICAL cue action from the pause to the finish to Ronnie O Sullivan.
To be clear when the cue stops at the back and when it comes through and hits the ball the cue itself will follow the exact same path.
On this I am willing to bet up to $500.
Pathetic Shark
Banned
Just curious - have you ever used GA?
Is that a Chinese herb?
How are you going to prove this? Serious question, as I don't know of any software.
Also, would even 30 be a lot? How many people play cue sports across the world?
You know honestly I wonder if you guys even know anything about the game you snobbishly use to beat up the pool players with?
http://www.terrygriffithssnooker.com/snooker-lab.aspx
I assume you have heard of this person right?
You are so missing the point. It's hard to have to state the obvious.
A straight stroke delivers the cue on a straight line to the target and beyond. Thus ANY player who can do this has a stroke as good as Ronnie O Sullivan's.
Now, whether they can maintain that stroke under pressure is the question. And it also begs the question of if they can then why do they miss sometimes?
Perhaps because despite having a laser straight stroke they -gasp- sometimes aim wrong.
[sarcasm] Well JB, I guess in one month you will have a straight stroke. And of course you already have the best aiming system since the Mace was invented. With that combination, I look forward to you winning every Tournament in China! [/sarcasm]
Pathetic Shark
Banned
You know honestly I wonder if you guys even know anything about the game you snobbishly use to beat up the pool players with?
http://www.terrygriffithssnooker.com/snooker-lab.aspx
I assume you have heard of this person right?
You are so missing the point. It's hard to have to state the obvious.
A straight stroke delivers the cue on a straight line to the target and beyond. Thus ANY player who can do this has a stroke as good as Ronnie O Sullivan's.
Now, whether they can maintain that stroke under pressure is the question. And it also begs the question of if they can then why do they miss sometimes?
Perhaps because despite having a laser straight stroke they -gasp- sometimes aim wrong.
Lol. They don't aim wrong. Lol.
Christ.
As for the rest of your post, you continue to disappoint me, John. Stop with the needless attempted one-upmanship and childish rhetorical questions. And aiming wrong? Hilarious.
And who says I'm a snooker guy (whatever that is)?
"the foundation does not make the building"
No, it's certainly not "all about the stoke"....."the foundation (stroke) does not complete the building" ... although it's essential to have one that's well designed.
No, it's certainly not "all about the stoke"....."the foundation (stroke) does not complete the building" ... although it's essential to have one that's well designed.
A straight stroke or cue action is just the beginning. You need consistency, reliability, touch, cuepower. I heard Steve Davis comment about Ronnie's cue action. He called it "freedom of cueing", and that's what it looks and probably feels like. The other professionals you mentioned, Stephen Hendry, John Higgins, etc. would not agree with you.
No, it's certainly not "all about the stoke"....."the foundation (stroke) does not complete the building" ... although it's essential to have one that's well designed.
What helps the stroke, as you have said, is looking at the CB last to make sure that you hit it where you wanted.
This works for me.
No you dont look foward to that. And of course you ALSO miss the point. Being able to make the cue go straight is just one part of the WHOLE package that makes a player.
This game has such nuance that frankly it is sad when people like you dont and perhaps will never understand the beauty of it because you are hung up on whether aiming systems work or not.
Aiming system users arent hung up on it. We use these methods as tools to use in being able play better so as to fully enjoy all the beauty this game offers.
You play by feel and yet never get to feel what playing great really is.
So as i thought to you and others the stroke is not just the action of the cue path. Funny because the cue 0ath is what every coach harps on.
My point is amply made that what you call the stroke is not something that is defined by perfect cue delivery and instead is a quality of hit coupled with perfect cue delivery.
We call that touch in the usa.
Which is yet another part of being a complete player.
How do you know?
Honestly? When a WORLD CLASS player is down on the shot and they miss then WHY did they miss?
Do you know why?
I don't. I wasn't in their head and seeing what they see. I wasn't in their arm and feeling what they feel. I wasn't in their heart and feeling the pressure they felt.
Nor was I a plotting the table and mapping cue stick position with shot line overlays using a computer and precision tracking. Neither were you.
No one knows exactly WHY a person missed except in the most painfully obvious examples. But that doesn't stop you from claiming it can't possibly be the aiming.
But then, on the other hand you delight in telling us that aiming is such an infinite task with so much fine variation that the any system cannot possibly cover it and thus no snooker player bothers with an aiming system. As if you know, which you don't. But assuming you did, your own argument betrays you when you say aiming is so hard a system can't cover it but then it's inconceivable that a professional snooker player could be just a tiny bit off on their aim ever.
Which is it?