cut induced throw?

ElCorazonFrio said:
Maybe you misunderstand the people posting.

I don't think of formulas and such when I am playing, but I thoroughly enjoy it.

I'm constantly amazed at people who demean those who attempt to understand that which they can do. Were it not for people such as these, you wouldn't have LD shafts, layered tips, leather tips or even chalk. You also wouldn't have radial tires on your car...which you also wouldn't have. You wouldn't have this forum and you'd be playing pool by gas lantern...oops, someone invented by understanding something simple like fire, so that wouldn't happen either.

You'd be playing no pool and you'd be not playing by light of tallow candles.

So, take your 55 years of playing this simple game using complicated equipment, supported by even more complicated infrastructure and keep being proud of your ignorance.

I'll be over here with the people who further understanding...I'll be the guy trying to keep up.
Click to expand...

I think you threw a wild pitch here & hit the guy in the on deck circle instead of the one in the batters box.

Measureman is rather like me, I have 3 years of physics but never consider any of it when playing the game. I'm actually glad I started at 13, a few years before any physics classes.

Measureman knows some science, too.

Best Wishes.
 
Ron Swanson said:
Classic example of the importance of forgetting the science when playing: I'd never heard of (nor experienced) gearing until recently but now I'm missing balls all the time because of it.

If you want to play good pool, you need to free your mind from such shackles and just play.
Click to expand...

:thumbup2::thumbup2::thumbup2:
 
Ive been playing this game since before I was 5 years old. I have always been a feel player, but I know a lot of the science behind the game as well. While it is nice to have the 'scientific explanation' to explain what is happening on the table, I really question how beneficial that information is in the learning process.

I think for some, those who think analytically, the information can be of benefit. That is usually the type of person who enjoys knowing how things work in general. Then there are those who prefer to jump in and play and figure things out on their own; and if you were to teach the physics of the game to these people you would likely see what they call "paralysis by analysis". You would overload them with thoughts that really aren't required to play the game even at the highest levels.

I just think its a little sad that all the arguing and bickering go on when the truth of the matter is that everybody is different. Not everybody learns the same way etc.
I'm convinced that bytching from either side is nothing but arguing from boredom, because you rarely see anything of real use come out of the bickering.
 
ENGLISH! said:
... I have 3 years of physics but never consider any of it when playing the game ...
Click to expand...
Do you:
- hit low on the CB when you want to draw it back?
- roll the CB when you want it to follow forward at the natural angle?
- stun the CB when you want it to head in the tangent-line direction (e.g., for a carom shot)?
- use sidespin to throw the OB of the line of centers when necessary?
- cut frozen combos in different directions to throw the 2nd ball in a wide range of directions as necessary?
- elevate the cue to jump or masse the CB?
- adjust your aim for throw when necessary (e.g., with a slow stun shot, or with a slow, extreme outside english shot)?
- use inside, outside, natural, and reverse english when it is most appropriate for a given shot?
- etc!!!

If so, then you are "considering" physics. You might not be considering it consciously or thinking about the math behind it (which would be silly at the table), but you are making decisions based on your intuitive and experience-based understanding of all of the physics (whether you are aware of or want to admit it or not).

Now, one should not be doing any of this thinking or decision making while one is down on a shot, ready to shoot. If one does this, one probably won't be an effective or consistent shooter:

Think before your shoot ... not during.

For people who don't yet have complete understanding from countless years of successful practice and experience, improved understanding and knowledge can help speed the learning process, limit frustration, and improve effectiveness at the table.

For those interesting, much more info and perspectives along these lines can be found here:

physics "understanding" sometimes provides useful insight

knowledge can be useful, but you still need skill

Regards,
Dave

PS: Many examples of how phsyics-based knowledge and/or understanding can be useful at the table can be found on the Top 100 Tips, Tricks, "Secrets," and "Gems" resource page. Many of the techniques on this page are based on "physics." Do you need to take a physics class or learn complicated math to use this stuff at a table? No! But a little "understanding" and/or "intuition" can go a long way.
 
Last edited:
^^^^^^^^^^

No crap, Dave? Really?

Please see Chuck Field's post #43.

Best Wishes.
 
Last edited:
Ron Swanson said:
Classic example of the importance of forgetting the science when playing: I'd never heard of (nor experienced) gearing until recently but now I'm missing balls all the time because of it.

If you want to play good pool, you need to free your mind from such shackles and just play.
Click to expand...
You seem to find it difficult to do that. Sorry.

I don't.

pj
chgo
 
Chuck Fields said:
I think for some, those who think analytically, the information can be of benefit.
Click to expand...
I don't think there's any question the info can be of benefit to any player - if they "internalize" it, then their subconscious supercomputer can use the info profitably while the player is "in the zone".

It's not the information that's paralyzing; it's the player's ability (or lack of it) to avoid being distracted by it while playing. I think that's just a matter of practicing using the new knowledge until using it becomes "instinctive".

pj
chgo
 
Chuck Fields said:
Ive been playing this game since before I was 5 years old. I have always been a feel player, but I know a lot of the science behind the game as well. While it is nice to have the 'scientific explanation' to explain what is happening on the table, I really question how beneficial that information is in the learning process.

I think for some, those who think analytically, the information can be of benefit. That is usually the type of person who enjoys knowing how things work in general. Then there are those who prefer to jump in and play and figure things out on their own; and if you were to teach the physics of the game to these people you would likely see what they call "paralysis by analysis". You would overload them with thoughts that really aren't required to play the game even at the highest levels.

I just think its a little sad that all the arguing and bickering go on when the truth of the matter is that everybody is different. Not everybody learns the same way etc.
I'm convinced that bytching from either side is nothing but arguing from boredom, because you rarely see anything of real use come out of the bickering.
Click to expand...

I think that it shortens the learning curve considerably. In fact I just told my colleague about Dr. Dave's 45 degree method to always go through the center of the table and avoid scratching. He has been playing 20 years and is a good player yet I saw him scratch in the corner several times in a set against me and I told him I could teach him how to never scratch again when bringing the cue ball around the table. I showed him the method and later the video and sure enough he hasn't scratched that way since.

The other day I used it to come three rails around through a very narrow corridor - something I would have never been able to feel my way into.

I think that useful information can come out of argument but not out of personal attacks. People on this and any other place on the net who attack the person and don't adhere to the topic are poisonous and cancerous and should be eliminated from the discussions every time. There is a way to discuss topics that leads to everyone involved coming to agreements on substantive issues.

dr_dave said:
Do you:
- hit low on the CB when you want to draw it back?
- roll the CB when you want it to follow forward at the natural angle?
- stun the CB when you want it to head in the tangent-line direction (e.g., for a carom shot)?
- use sidespin to throw the OB of the line of centers when necessary?
- cut frozen combos in different directions to throw the 2nd ball in a wide range of directions as necessary?
- elevate the cue to jump or masse the CB?
- adjust your aim for throw when necessary (e.g., with a slow stun shot, or with a slow, extreme outside english shot)?
- use inside, outside, natural, and reverse english when it is most appropriate for a given shot?
- etc!!!

If so, then you are "considering" physics. You might not be considering it consciously or thinking about the math behind it (which would be silly at the table), but you are making decisions based on your intuitive and experience-based understanding of all of the physics (whether you are aware of or want to admit it or not).

Now, one should not be doing any of this thinking or decision making while one is down on a shot, ready to shoot. If one does this, one probably won't be an effective or consistent shooter:

Think before your shoot ... not during.

For people who don't yet have complete understanding from countless years of successful practice and experience, improved understanding and knowledge can help speed the learning process, limit frustration, and improve effectiveness at the table.

For those interesting, much more info and perspectives along these lines can be found here:

physics "understanding" sometimes provides useful insight

knowledge can be useful, but you still need skill

Regards,
Dave

PS: Many examples of how phsyics-based knowledge and/or understanding can be useful at the table can be found on the Top 100 Tips, Tricks, "Secrets," and "Gems" resource page. Many of the techniques on this page are based on "physics." Do you need to take a physics class or learn complicated math to use this stuff at a table? No! But a little "understanding" and/or "intuition" can go a long way.
Click to expand...

Dave, your work is a tremendous undertaking and a real advantage to anyone who takes the time to absorb all that you have put out there. I am convinced that if two players start playing at the same time both with tables of their own, the one who studies your material will be far better, far quicker than the one who tries to learn everything by just hitting balls.

We will I guess always disagree about CTE and similar aiming systems but for almost everything else you put out there I find it to be a wonderful resource of good factual information.
 
JB Cases said:
I think that it shortens the learning curve considerably. In fact I just told my colleague about Dr. Dave's 45 degree method to always go through the center of the table and avoid scratching. He has been playing 20 years and is a good player yet I saw him scratch in the corner several times in a set against me and I told him I could teach him how to never scratch again when bringing the cue ball around the table. I showed him the method and later the video and sure enough he hasn't scratched that way since.

The other day I used it to come three rails around through a very narrow corridor - something I would have never been able to feel my way into.

I think that useful information can come out of argument but not out of personal attacks. People on this and any other place on the net who attack the person and don't adhere to the topic are poisonous and cancerous and should be eliminated from the discussions every time. There is a way to discuss topics that leads to everyone involved coming to agreements on substantive issues.



Dave, your work is a tremendous undertaking and a real advantage to anyone who takes the time to absorb all that you have put out there. I am convinced that if two players start playing at the same time both with tables of their own, the one who studies your material will be far better, far quicker than the one who tries to learn everything by just hitting balls.

We will I guess always disagree about CTE and similar aiming systems but for almost everything else you put out there I find it to be a wonderful resource of good factual information.
Click to expand...

Enough with the 'personal attacks' diatribe. Aside from it being hysterically hypocritical, you're starting to sound like jam.

And as for the two players experiment, the better player will be the one with the most talent, regardless of anything you could teach them. It is astonishing someone that plays like you do cannot recognise the importance of talent.
 
Ron Swanson said:
Enough with the 'personal attacks' diatribe. Aside from it being hysterically hypocritical, you're starting to sound like jam.

And as for the two players experiment, the better player will be the one with the most talent, regardless of anything you could teach them. It is astonishing someone that plays like you do cannot recognise the importance of talent.
Click to expand...

Stop the nonsense. We have been over this a zillion times. Training trumps "talent".

And yes personal attacks derail good conversations Tim.

We can take 100 players and test them to see what level of "talent" they possess on day one and then let 50 of them absorb and practice ONLY Dr. Dave's material and the rest get only table time.

I bet that the knowledge group will be the better players BY far if tested every month throughout a year.

Surely China could field more "talented" players and dominate the snooker rankings, after all they have 1.5 billion people...... OR what they don't have is a culture that takes young kids and pairs them with world class coaching and world class competition like England does.

Neither does America. Your own arguments in the past and railing on and on and on and on about technique show this clearly. Not being immersed in snooker culture, not being subjected to snooker knoweldge, pool players have little chance to hang with the pros in snooker.

But even Steve Davis said it best when he said that a champion pool player would have also been a champion snooker player IF he had grown up playing snooker. So bottom line is that exposure to knowledge trumps lack of exposure to knowledge.

Some of you guys are clinging to this romantic notion that people are either good from natural talent or they will never be good. That's nonsense. People are good because of desire and opportunity to train the right way.
 
JB Cases said:
Stop the nonsense. We have been over this a zillion times. Training trumps "talent".

And yes personal attacks derail good conversations Tim.

We can take 100 players and test them to see what level of "talent" they possess on day one and then let 50 of them absorb and practice ONLY Dr. Dave's material and the rest get only table time.

I bet that the knowledge group will be the better players BY far if tested every month throughout a year.

Surely China could field more "talented" players and dominate the snooker rankings, after all they have 1.5 billion people...... OR what they don't have is a culture that takes young kids and pairs them with world class coaching and world class competition like England does.

Neither does America. Your own arguments in the past and railing on and on and on and on about technique show this clearly. Not being immersed in snooker culture, not being subjected to snooker knoweldge, pool players have little chance to hang with the pros in snooker.

But even Steve Davis said it best when he said that a champion pool player would have also been a champion snooker player IF he had grown up playing snooker. So bottom line is that exposure to knowledge trumps lack of exposure to knowledge.

Some of you guys are clinging to this romantic notion that people are either good from natural talent or they will never be good. That's nonsense. People are good because of desire and opportunity to train the right way.
Click to expand...

Desire comes from talent. When our talent is expended, our desire is too. They are interlinked.

Virtually everyone in the developed world has opportunity. Another BS excuse.
 
JB Cases said:
Dave, your work is a tremendous undertaking and a real advantage to anyone who takes the time to absorb all that you have put out there. I am convinced that if two players start playing at the same time both with tables of their own, the one who studies your material will be far better, far quicker than the one who tries to learn everything by just hitting balls.
Click to expand...
Thanks John. I agree. Knowledge is power. Understanding is even better. And solid intuition built up by countless years of successful practice and experience is the best.

JB Cases said:
We will I guess always disagree about CTE and similar aiming systems but for almost everything else you put out there I find it to be a wonderful resource of good factual information.
Click to expand...
I bet we have more common ground on these topics than you might think. I certainly understand and appreciate the many benefits of aiming systems like CTE. And if we spent some time together at a table, I bet you would also better appreciate some of the limitations.

The main issue I had with CTE and related aiming systems in the early years was some of the often-outrageous "marketing claims" that often came with their "promotion." It seems like there is less of that now, which I think makes them more palatable.

Regards,
Dave
 
Ron Swanson said:
Desire comes from talent. When our talent is expended, our desire is too. They are interlinked.

Virtually everyone in the developed world has opportunity. Another BS excuse.
Click to expand...
You're right.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
 
Ron Swanson said:
I have no desire to understand/internalise information given by people who cannot play, Patrick.
Click to expand...
This is a nonsensical viewpoint and that becomes obvious to anybody that gives more than two seconds of thought to it. If what you were saying were true, why do 99% of the coaches of professional sports even exist? They are almost never as good as those they coach (and never were) and usually they aren't all that good at all and often they flat suck and occasionally they have never even competed in or participated much in that which they are such an expert on.

Coaches usually suck because they don't have talent and physical skills, plain and simple. Their knowledge of the sport far surpasses those they coach though and is often among the best in the world. Knowledge of how to do something is almost completely unrelated to having the physical skills and talent for doing it well. You already know this though, and so does everybody else. The "if you aren't the best player you don't have the best knowledge" is an illogical and untrue argument.

In fact your post below to John Barton in this same thread (which directly conflicts with your above post ) points out just that, that talent and physical skill have much more to do with how good someone is at a physical skill like pool than anything else. You can be the most knowledgeable person in the world about something and totally suck at it if you lack the physical skills/talent. There is almost no relation between the two at all.

Ron Swanson said:
And as for the two players experiment, the better player will be the one with the most talent...It is astonishing someone that plays like you do cannot recognise the importance of talent.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top