cut induced throw?

Patrick Johnson said:
I can't think of a way to prove it. What do you propose?

pj
chgo

P.S. I admire your restraint in that response to my blatant dig. :)
Click to expand...

Well I think you would need a control group whom you could give a set amount of shots and measure their scratches and near scratches. Then you take some of them and teach them the method and test them again.

The point I was making moreover though is that a lot of people on here seem to really want pool to ONLY be learned through hitting a million balls and anyone who doesn't subscribe to that is seen as a talentless hack who has no chance to ever get to any decent level. My thought is that

The technique is the 45 degree angle into the rail off cuts to insure center table paths. Learning this reduces the chances of scratching tremendously and increases cue ball control immensely. It's a simple rule that is completely counter-intuitive for the "feel" players per my experience. But once learned it opens pathways previously either not considered or thought to be too cluttered for the cue ball to reliably sent through the clutter.

This is but one example of something learned through Dr. Dave's willingness to put it out there for anyone willing to study things that aren't obvious.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OD5TsWrByI
 
Sloppy Pockets said:
dr_dave said:
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...
One does not need to know how any of it works in order to be able to execute it flawlessly.
Click to expand...
I agree 100%.

Sloppy Pockets said:
It's the execution part where most of us fail, not the lack of understanding of the science behind it all.
Click to expand...
This is where we might disagree some. I think your statement might apply to an experience player who has already developed a complete intuitive understanding of all pool effects, principles and techniques. However, people who can't accurately predict CB direction for roll, stun and draw shots, or don't know how to compensate aim when using english (for different types of shots), or don't know how to send the CB to or through the center of the table off multiple rails, or don't know how to accurately aim various types of kick and bank shots, and don't know how to predict CB direction with masse shots, etc! ... they can certainly benefit from learning a few basic concepts. They still need to have skill to execute, but if they haven't yet fully developed complete intuition and understanding through countless years of successful practice and experience, learning a few things can help a lot ... immediately! I've seen many examples of this with students I've worked with (who weren't yet top players, and still have a long way to go). I even met some fairly strong players who don't know how to do certain things (because they haven't spent time figuring them out through lots of trial and error). They also can benefit immediately by learning some basic concepts or techniques they don't yet know.

Regards,
Dave
 
JoeyInCali said:
And at 12 years old, he beat the number 8 player in the islands .
That #8 player had thousands of hours on Efren on the table .
Totoy Dacer was the best player in the land . By the time Efren was in his late teens, he was robbing him.
Efren is a savant . So is SVB .
Nobody said they didn't need to practice.
Neither one knows the science of billiards. The science is in their eyes.
Click to expand...

That's your opinion. They may well be "savants" but the fact is that they, Efren and SVB, didn't get there WITHOUT practice and experience.

Neither of them got there without lots of table time and study.

We can bet super effing high on that.

You will not find me one filipino kid who picked up a cue and a month later was beating champions EVER.

Earlier Michael Jordan was put forth as an example. Jordan himself has said in interviews that he hates to hear people ascribe his success to natural talent when he worked so hard for it. Most top performers across all fields say the same thing.

The world class performer that did not put in the time is a RARE RARE RARE exception. Incredibly rare.

So rare that the guy who wrote the sports gene could only find a few examples among world class athletes. And the people who study world class skill have found incredibly few - i.e. statisically NONE - people who didn't have to put in a lot of time to develop that world class skill.

In fact overwhelmingly they find that those who are at the top of any given sport or profession OVERWHELMINGLY have up to TWICE as many hours of dedicated practice/experience than those at the next level down.

So, even if you are right and SVB and Efren sprang from the womb able to run 10 packs the vast majority of world class players did not and they have had to put in enormous amounts of time to get to that level. But you are wrong about both of them, they are examples of players with incredible work ethics who put their time to intelligent use.
 
JB Cases said:
Wrong.

Knowledge and practice.

Efren, when asked how he knows so many great shots said he watches amateurs make fluke shots and then he goes to the table and practices those shots until he can do them on purpose.
Click to expand...

So that's all it takes? Yikes, I'm gunna be world champ!

:rolleyes:
 
Poolplaya9 said:
Wrong. Both of their subconscious's learned most of the science of billiards through experience. Now if they consciously learned the last bit they would be even slightly better. I do agree that both had exceptional talent.
Click to expand...

It's the assumption that knowing this shit automatically makes you a better player i object to.

Why do you think knowing it makes you improve? Not a single great snooker player has ever known any of this, and it didn't do them any harm. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
 
JB Cases said:
That's your opinion. They may well be "savants" but the fact is that they, Efren and SVB, didn't get there WITHOUT practice and experience.

Neither of them got there without lots of table time and study.

We can bet super effing high on that.

You will not find me one filipino kid who picked up a cue and a month later was beating champions EVER.

Earlier Michael Jordan was put forth as an example. Jordan himself has said in interviews that he hates to hear people ascribe his success to natural talent when he worked so hard for it. Most top performers across all fields say the same thing.

The world class performer that did not put in the time is a RARE RARE RARE exception. Incredibly rare.

So rare that the guy who wrote the sports gene could only find a few examples among world class athletes. And the people who study world class skill have found incredibly few - i.e. statisically NONE - people who didn't have to put in a lot of time to develop that world class skill.

In fact overwhelmingly they find that those who are at the top of any given sport or profession OVERWHELMINGLY have up to TWICE as many hours of dedicated practice/experience than those at the next level down.

So, even if you are right and SVB and Efren sprang from the womb able to run 10 packs the vast majority of world class players did not and they have had to put in enormous amounts of time to get to that level. But you are wrong about both of them, they are examples of players with incredible work ethics who put their time to intelligent use.
Click to expand...

John,

Did Michael Jordan work so hard to get there by studying the physics of what happens when a basketball is flying through the air or bouncing off the court floor?

There are many that had extreme talent that did nothing with it for various reasons as someone mentioned before.

You seem to almost always makes suggestive analogies that really do not fit.

Take 2 of the same age, one with natural talent & one with very little if any, & then train them equally for a year or two. Do you think the the one with virtually no natural talent will surpass the one that has loads of natural talent, with ALL other things being equal?

That is not to say that many without much natural talent have not made themselves into high level players in nearly every sport, because there are certainly cases of that, but they are on the rare side.

Brian Piccolo's love & desire for the the game of football was equal to if not greater than that of Gail Sayers, but Brian Piccolo was not & never would have been able to make himself the likes of Gail Sayers.

Best Wishes.
 
Last edited:
dr_dave said:
I agree 100%.

This is where we might disagree some. I think your statement might apply to an experience player who has already developed a complete intuitive understanding of all pool effects, principles and techniques. However, people who can't accurately predict CB direction for roll, stun and draw shots, or don't know how to compensate aim when using english (for different types of shots), or don't know how to send the CB to or through the center of the table off multiple rails, or don't know how to accurately aim various types of kick and bank shots, and don't know how to predict CB direction with masse shots, etc! ... they can certainly benefit from learning a few basic concepts. They still need to have skill to execute, but if they haven't yet fully developed complete intuition and understanding through countless years of successful practice and experience, learning a few things can help a lot ... immediately! I've seen many examples of this with students I've worked with (who weren't yet top players, and still have a long way to go). I even met some fairly strong players who don't know how to do certain things (because they haven't spent time figuring them out through lots of trial and error). They also can benefit immediately by learning some basic concepts or techniques they don't yet know.

Regards,
Dave
Click to expand...

If I'm reading you correctly, much like aiming systems, physics can help the beginner or less able.

I have no problem with that.
 
ENGLISH! said:
Did Michael Jordan work so hard to get there by studying the physics of what happens when a basketball is flying through the air or bouncing off the court floor?

Best Wishes.
Click to expand...

First, I'm not defending JB, as I think he is spinning his tires without listening to anyone...which seems to be pretty normal for him.

But, I will contend that Michael Jordan did study the physics of the game. He most certainly didn't prove the physics on paper and he didn't analyze the physics using calculus, but he did study the physics because he observed what happened, tried something new and honed in on things that worked well almost every time.

That is physics. What Dr. Dave does is analyzing the physics. Basically think of it as going to a foreign country where you don't speak the language. You'd pick up on many local customs simply by observing. Some people would assimilate completely in a short period of time. Others probably never would assimilate and would likely benefit from having an interpreter.

That is what the analysis is for me, an interpretation into a language that I mostly understand. From this, I am able to apply things that I haven't observed.

Fun factoid, some elite athletes did actually do analysis.

From Tim Ferris' Genius website: - If you're capable of becoming a Tiger Woods or a Yo-Yo Ma, you'll know early in life. Tiger Woods wasn't drawing pirate ships as a kid, he was literally drawing trajectories of golf balls hit with different irons. He broke 80 for the first time at age eight.

I saw one of his pictures of the trajectories of different clubs used for the same approach shot.
 
ElCorazonFrio said:
First, I'm not defending JB, as I think he is spinning his tires without listening to anyone...which seems to be pretty normal for him.

But, I will contend that Michael Jordan did study the physics of the game. He most certainly didn't prove the physics on paper and he didn't analyze the physics using calculus, but he did study the physics because he observed what happened, tried something new and honed in on things that worked well almost every time.

That is physics. What Dr. Dave does is analyzing the physics. Basically think of it as going to a foreign country where you don't speak the language. You'd pick up on many local customs simply by observing. Some people would assimilate completely in a short period of time. Others probably never would assimilate and would likely benefit from having an interpreter.

That is what the analysis is for me, an interpretation into a language that I mostly understand. From this, I am able to apply things that I haven't observed.

Fun factoid, some elite athletes did actually do analysis.

From Tim Ferris' Genius website: - If you're capable of becoming a Tiger Woods or a Yo-Yo Ma, you'll know early in life. Tiger Woods wasn't drawing pirate ships as a kid, he was literally drawing trajectories of golf balls hit with different irons. He broke 80 for the first time at age eight.

I saw one of his pictures of the trajectories of different clubs used for the same approach shot.
Click to expand...

I hear you & understand.

Every breath that we take involves an asspect of physics. Do we as individuals study it? No, we just breathe.

Physics is the reality of all in the Universe.

We use man made math to help explain & aid in the study of physics & other sciences.

I would say what they 'study' is specific cause & effects within their individual endeavors as opposed to studying any universal physics.

They do not know why a spinning full court pass curves in the air or why a certain loft club yields a certain trajectory( much involved there) They just know that is does.

I think you, I , & others get it & some others on here do not. Hence there is no need for us to pick it apart to within a nano of specific correctness.

Best 2 Ya.

PS I think you know JB rather well.
 
ENGLISH! said:
John,

Did Michael Jordan work so hard to get there by studying the physics of what happens when a basketball is flying through the air or bouncing off the court floor?

There are many that had extreme talent that did nothing with it for various reasons as someone mentioned before.

You seem to almost always makes suggestive analogies that really do not fit.

Take 2 of the same age, one with natural talent & one with very little if any, & then train them equally for a year or two. Do you think the the one with virtually no natural talent will surpass the one that has loads of natural talent, with ALL other things being equal?

That is not to say that many without much natural talent have not made themselves into high level players in nearly every sport, because there are certainly cases of that, but they are on the rare side.

Brian Piccolo's love & desire for the the game of football was equal to if not greater than that of Gail Sayers, but Brian Piccolo was not & never would have been able to make himself the likes of Gail Sayers.

Best Wishes.
Click to expand...
Huh? He might have among other things. Just because a player doesn't have to doesn't mean that knowledge of the actual effects isn't helpful.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
 
Ron Swanson said:
It's the assumption that knowing this shit automatically makes you a better player i object to. Why do you think knowing it makes you improve?
Click to expand...
To be clear, although I think I already was clear in this respect, knowing this stuff will not make you a great player (that takes tons of hard work and talent and experience as well). What it will do though is make you a better player faster, and it will also make you better than than you would have been if you did not consciously know all the science of everything in pool (not the formulas, just the truth of what happens when and why). I laid out some of the reasons for that here:
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=5335556&postcount=81

Ron Swanson said:
Not a single great snooker player has ever known any of this, and it didn't do them any harm.
Click to expand...

Yes, with enough talent and hard work you can get to the level of being one of the great snooker players and nobody disputes that, and trust me, American pros are largely just as clueless on a conscious level to the physics as you say snooker players are (and often have totally wrong beliefs, not just a lack of knowledge). The thing is though, had they consciously known the correct science, they would have gotten there a little quicker and/or with less work, and they would have ended up being slightly better than they were. Now I am not saying they would have ultimately been twice as good and gotten there twice as fast. At their level especially the improvements to how good they would ultimately get are fairly small and incremental (although more consequential for lesser players and more consequential in regards to how long it would take to get to any certain level), but any and all improvement is obviously a good thing.
 
Last edited:
ElCorazonFrio said:
First, I'm not defending JB, as I think he is spinning his tires without listening to anyone...which seems to be pretty normal for him.

But, I will contend that Michael Jordan did study the physics of the game. He most certainly didn't prove the physics on paper and he didn't analyze the physics using calculus, but he did study the physics because he observed what happened, tried something new and honed in on things that worked well almost every time.

That is physics. What Dr. Dave does is analyzing the physics. Basically think of it as going to a foreign country where you don't speak the language. You'd pick up on many local customs simply by observing. Some people would assimilate completely in a short period of time. Others probably never would assimilate and would likely benefit from having an interpreter.

That is what the analysis is for me, an interpretation into a language that I mostly understand. From this, I am able to apply things that I haven't observed.

Fun factoid, some elite athletes did actually do analysis.

From Tim Ferris' Genius website: - If you're capable of becoming a Tiger Woods or a Yo-Yo Ma, you'll know early in life. Tiger Woods wasn't drawing pirate ships as a kid, he was literally drawing trajectories of golf balls hit with different irons. He broke 80 for the first time at age eight.

I saw one of his pictures of the trajectories of different clubs used for the same approach shot.
Click to expand...

And WHY was he drawing those trajectories? Because his father Earl had already determined that Tiger was going to be trained as a golfer and from the earliest age did everything he could to immerse Tiger in golf. Luckily for Tiger's dad Tiger had the desire to learn golf.

I used to draw out pool shots as a teenager as well. But no one was immersing me in pool, providing me with access to world class players and the best known techniques. I was on my own and my training consisted of what I felt like doing within what I had access to. In the 80s there was no internet and access to information consisted of whatever books and tapes were advertised in the billiard magazines and whoever you could find at the pool room who would teach you things.

Now anyone who is 15 and interested in becoming a good player has literally thousands of hours of high quality instruction on YouTube along with thousands of hours of world class play to study. Add to that the existence of forums where people can discuss to infinity the finer points of any part of the game.

That's my point.

Foreigners who live in China rarely learn Chinese simply by observance. Those who study do much better with mandarin. (said as one who lived in China for seven years and was too lazy to be diligent about learning) On the other hand I learned German with relatively little formal study. My girlfriend taught me the basic rules and from there I just immersed myself.
 
Love these calm, intelligent, conversations!

JB Cases said:
That's your opinion. They may well be "savants" but the fact is that they, Efren and SVB, didn't get there WITHOUT practice and experience.
Neither of them got there without lots of table time and study.
We can bet super effing high on that.
You will not find me one filipino kid who picked up a cue and a month later was beating champions EVER.
Earlier Michael Jordan was put forth as an example. Jordan himself has said in interviews that he hates to hear people ascribe his success to natural talent when he worked so hard for it. Most top performers across all fields say the same thing.
The world class performer that did not put in the time is a RARE RARE RARE exception. Incredibly rare.
So rare that the guy who wrote the sports gene could only find a few examples among world class athletes. And the people who study world class skill have found incredibly few - i.e. statisically NONE - people who didn't have to put in a lot of time to develop that world class skill.
In fact overwhelmingly they find that those who are at the top of any given sport or profession OVERWHELMINGLY have up to TWICE as many hours of dedicated practice/experience than those at the next level down.
So, even if you are right and SVB and Efren sprang from the womb able to run 10 packs the vast majority of world class players did not and they have had to put in enormous amounts of time to get to that level. But you are wrong about both of them, they are examples of players with incredible work ethics who put their time to intelligent use.
Click to expand...
Concerning your paragraph I have marked in bold letters.
Would you agree that those same people would not advance as far if they were spending all those hours practicing and acquiring knowledge that was not accurate in the first place? To wit: Perfect practice makes perfect...NOT practice makes perfect. As evidence, I would submit bad habits, stroke problems, stances, etc. etc. which have been ingrained over the years of practicing the same old wrong things.
I believe that the explosion in super players over the past 20 years is due to the increased availability of accurate, truthful, and VISIBLE knowledge being transferred over the internet...from all corners of the world. Also, in Asia and the far east, pool is thought of as an honorable game. Therefore youngsters get factual knowledge early in life whereas here in the US, most parents don't want their kids to be pool room bums.
You surely can recall how when we were all young at 16 and hanging in the pool rooms across the country, not a PERSON would tip any true information unless you came across with some money. Furthermore they did not want to risk the abuse from other players for assisting in "waking up a sucker ".
What are your comments on this, please? OOPS...I didn't read your post before mine
Regards,
Flash
 
Last edited:
JB Cases said:
Huh? He might have among other things. Just because a player doesn't have to doesn't mean that knowledge of the actual effects isn't helpful.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

As I said in another post, they 'study' cause & effect for the individual sport that they are playing but without any concern for the what & why physics of it. Turn your hand this way & this happens. Turn your hand that way & that happens. That is the HOW TO play the game & not the what & why of physics.

Your 'arguments' here are rather interesting & a bit ironic given your stance on CTE.

Best Wishes.
 
ElCorazonFrio said:
Basically think of it as going to a foreign country where you don't speak the language. You'd pick up on many local customs simply by observing. Some people would assimilate completely in a short period of time. Others probably never would assimilate and would likely benefit from having an interpreter.

That is what the analysis is for me, an interpretation into a language that I mostly understand. From this, I am able to apply things that I haven't observed.
Click to expand...
That's a great analogy - I'm stealing it.

pj <- where I get all my good stuff
chgo
 
Here it comes again........

ENGLISH! said:
As I said in another post, they 'study' cause & effect for the individual sport that they are playing but without any concern for the what & why physics of it. Turn your hand this way & this happens. Turn your hand that way & that happens. That is the HOW TO play the game & not the what & why of physics.
Your 'arguments' here are rather interesting & a bit ironic given your stance on CTE.
Best Wishes.
Click to expand...
I KNEW IT!
You just couldn't wait to throw out a jab of negativity about CTE could you?
And nobody was even discussing it, but nevertheless here you are with your tacky shot. Man, you got issues.
 
GoldenFlash said:
I KNEW IT!
You just couldn't wait to throw out a jab of negativity about CTE could you?
And nobody was even discussing it, but nevertheless here you are with your tacky shot. Man, you got issues.
Click to expand...

It's that John's logic is not consistent is all. That was about John & not IT.

If you would add up the posts, references & actual typing of the letters John is the UNIVERSE & I would be but a small solar system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top