I thought you were referring to the video where Lou took three break shots to make a cumulative score. Even so I still think that there are plenty of folks who post on the aiming system forum who could easily get through two racks and into a third.
"Plenty"? If we're still talking strictly short-rack rotation players (and not guys that practice or have very good familiarity with straight pool), sorry John, but no, I would challenge that. A few, or a handful? Sure.
Thank you for the lesson on 14.1 basics, I had no idea.
Actually, that was to address your "multiple swings at the plate" thing, which you reiterated above. I wanted to be clear we were talking about the same thing.
Oh please. Now this is going to turn into a 14.1 vs. 9 ball debate? The same guys who can put up 3-5 packs of nine ball, that is running 27-45 balls in rotation are the ones you say can't run 30 in straight pool?
Thank you for proving my point. You have entirely too much respect for that "running the balls in rotation" thing. And, those 27-45 balls are NOT being run continuously -- there's 3/4/5 "mind-resetting" break shots in there, remember? They are not truly stringing those 27-45 shots together.
Although I will give you that the player that CAN string 3 - 5 packs of 9-ball consistently (and we're talking 9-foot table, of course,
not barboxes) probably *do* have the shooting prowess to hack their way through a 30-ball straight pool run.
And you have interviewed these players and know that they are "exclusively" 9 Ball players.
Oh, come on. You mean to tell me that even you yourself can't tell one player's creed from another? That you can't tell when someone's "cue ball heroics" (racing around the table to get from shot to shot, versus picking the pattern apart correctly) is not one leaning on their base 9-ball skillset?
You mean to tell me that you can't tell a 14.1 player, from a one pocket player, from a 9-ball player, etc. -- just by watching how they play?
But to answer your question, yes, yes we have interviewed players afterwards, and the suspicions were correct in almost every case.
And the pressure of getting up to play in a challenge format at one of these contests has nothing to do with it? After all in the very same contests we have also not seen the professionals and self-proclaimed professionals putting up the same scores that they have done or claimed to have done in less formal settings.
That's very true -- pressure gets to us all. But in these pressure situations, we all resort to our "base" or "founding" skillset. And that's my point -- one's "9-ball-ness" comes out in these pressure situations.
Why don't you spend some time with us in the 14.1 challenge booth, and watch? You'll see what I'm talking about, and then we can interview players afterwards, and verify.
Well for what it's worth I consider video to be the new way to hustle. Put a lot of video out there that shows you playing badly, talk about how great you are and how much you understand the game and line up the suckers willing to play you.
Can't argue that. I got nuthin'.
It is number one. You don't get paid for missing. And especially in your beloved 14.1 where a miss could cost you the entire match. In the run out contest format a miss simply ends your attempt. No bonus points for how creative you were trying to be.
Well then we will have to disagree because I feel that the game demands that the sequence be make the ball and get shape in that order repeated until the game is over. Because dong it out of sequence means you don't get to continue playing.
This is common sense. But not all things can be boiled down so simply. Yes, it's true; if you miss, your run is over, you sit, and you lose. But it's also true that you make the ball, you forget that you were supposed to break up that cluster a foot away, and now you lost your window to do so, where that cluster bites you in the *ss later, ending your run, you sit, and you lose. See?
<...facepalm...> Remember the purpose of my original reply? That before people lambaste, they should
know what they're looking at, that not everything is as it looks or seems?
<...Sean reminds himself he's in the Aiming subforum...> But of course, if we're going to emotionally-charge aiming systems, let's make sure we adopt the stance that *any* miss is sacrilege, right?
What dare? To run more than 30 balls on a 9ft table? Ok, when I have the time to do it I will post a video. My memory card starts getting funny after about 30 minutes of recording so I run balls until the storage capacity is reached or I miss which will likely be sooner but more than 30 balls for sure.
Now we're talking!
[...]
I am ok with disagreeing. I don't consider it to be tunnel vision but instead practicality that if you are playing a game where you have to make a shot to continue shooting that your focus be on making the shot first and foremost. As Willie said when asked about the secret to pool, "don't miss".
Right, and conveniently forget that there's more to staying at the table than "don't miss" (which was Willie's trademarked sarcasm, btw -- but obviously, the readership devotees here in this particular forum miss the sarcasm and instead take it as "gospel"). You are just as likely to have to sit and lose with not doing your other duties at the table (e.g. breaking up clusters), as you are with a miss.
Perhaps it is a simple view but the plain fact is that missing ends the turn. So if you are in a run out contest your primary task is to make the ball you are shooting whether or not you achieve the secondary task of getting the result you wanted after making the shot.
"Whether or not" is also too simplistic. You need *both*. You are just as likely to have your run ended, sit, and lose, with not doing that secondary duty, as you are with a miss. Granted, the miss guarantees that position, while you might get lucky in achieving the secondary task in a subsequent shot if you didn't miss. Or not! It really depends on how many balls are left on the table -- you already know this, but the more there are, the more opportunities you have to achieve those secondary goals. But the less balls on the table, the less chances you have -- so back to the original point, you need to achieve those secondary goals as early as possible, thereby tying the primary and secondary goals back together again in each shot. A pool "shot" is a complete system all by itself. You can't deconstruct it or boil it down like you are, without losing the whole premise behind the shot's purpose of keeping you at the table.
When I offer a serious bet Sean then it's real bucks. When I say bet a million then it's hyperbole of course.
You missed the little jab. Nobody seems to take you up on these gaff bets (I've
yet to see one accepted and executed to resolution), so I thought it was monopoly money you were betting.
Anyway, let's get something straight -- we *all* use aiming systems. You do, I do, everyone does. If you have a technique or methodology for getting yourself online and set into a shot, ready to fire, you are using an aiming system. I myself have a set number of steps I get into before I'm ready to pull the trigger. That, to me, is a SYSTEM for aiming.
I just think the passion, religion, and especially the vitriol over the topic of "aiming systems" is just entirely overboard. We're getting so wound up over this stuff?
Doesn't make sense. (And that goes for BOTH sides, btw -- those that attack, and those that defend.)
-Sean
Disruptive behavior disorder and bullying you may want to look into these.
