cut induced throw?

measureman said:
Here's my take on the above.
No it has not made players better than those of the past.
It just has made a larger number of better players today.
When I started out the common thing was don't teach anybody anything. They just might use it to beat you someday.
I learned mainly by watching.I knew very little about the physics of the game.
I would see someone play a shot and get position.Looks like he hit low right spin.I would get on a table and try the shot until I figured out how to do it.
There was an old time real good player that owned the room and had stopped competing by the early '60's.
Every now and then he would show me something but usually when the room was pretty empty.
For quite awhile late at night when he chased everyone out he would lock the door and we would play straight pool for awhile.Watching and listening to him was a gold mine of information.
One night he ran a 169 on me and pretty much talked about each shot as he played.
And I was the only one to see it besides him.
I was 16 at the time and it was magical.
Click to expand...

Today, the internet is that old man.

And you are essentially saying the same thing....when there is a larger number of better players then the general average skill level is higher.

In other words in any given pool room if there were five A players in 1990 then there might be 10 now, which means more B players more C players etc...

Now we have tons and tons of videos for free and for relatively little money where aspiring players can get professional commentary about every shot taken. We have slow motion video of the true actions of the balls and to me this definitely has an effect on a player's mind as he contemplates how to play.

We have many tips and tricks that were either not talked about or not even discovered or buried in obscure books that are now available for free.

Think about it, you were lucky to have that old man give you a 169 ball lesson. But no one else got it or would ever get it. Now anyone can watch Darren Appleton (or pick a pro) run 200 balls and get the same level of information as many times as they want to watch it.
 
JB Cases said:
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.
Click to expand...

The language thing...german is very similar to english, far and away the easiest language for english speakers to learn, whereas mandarin is probably about the most difficult.

Anyway, following the boom in snooker's popularity in the 1980s, thousands of british kids got 6x3 snooker tables as christmas or birthday presents, me included, and played with them in our undersized bedrooms, very often alone. Virtually all developed near perfect cue actions without books, videos, coaching, a pushy parent or anything. Just kids, learning on their own.

How do you explain this? By your reckoning you must have these things or you'll never progress. There are thousands of good cueists in the uk that would vehemently disagree with your assessment about what it takes to become a good player.

Anyone can become a good player if they start young enough. Those that go on to become great are those with the biggest talent.
 
Ron Swanson said:
Anyone can become a good player if they start young enough. Those that go on to become great are those with the biggest talent.
Click to expand...

This is it, basically.

Talent alone isn't enough to become a great player - but it is still necessary.

Stephen Hendry made a 50 break two weeks after first picking up a cue. What is that if not talent?
Yes, his professionalism, dedication and sheer desire to win also drove him to the top of the game - you can't do what he did without all of those things, but you can't do it without talent either.
 
SakuJack said:
This is it, basically.

Talent alone isn't enough to become a great player - but it is still necessary.

Stephen Hendry made a 50 break two weeks after first picking up a cue. What is that if not talent?
Yes, his professionalism, dedication and sheer desire to win also drove him to the top of the game - you can't do what he did without all of those things, but you can't do it without talent either.
Click to expand...
Magnetic pockets.

I've never heard of him doing this before. That's ridiculous if you ask me. Some old boys at my club have been playing 50 odd years and still haven't had a break of 50.
 
Pidge said:
Magnetic pockets.

I've never heard of him doing this before. That's ridiculous if you ask me. Some old boys at my club have been playing 50 odd years and still haven't had a break of 50.
Click to expand...

I've heard/seen it in several different places over the years - I should add it was on his 6ft table at home. You never know, though, could just be rumour/legend.

It is a crazy fact if true, especially considering Hendry only started playing when he was 13, I think.
 
SakuJack said:
I've heard/seen it in several different places over the years - I should add it was on his 6ft table at home. You never know, though, could just be rumour/legend.

It is a crazy fact if true, especially considering Hendry only started playing when he was 13, I think.
Click to expand...
Perfect age to start playing. You are developed enough to take things in, like instruction which I'm sure he must have gotten even if it was something simple like hit pot this red rather than this red, but young enough to not fear learning new things and still young enough to enjoy the crap out of it playing 8 hours straight.

I've been working with a youngster for a while now with his father and he is starting to make 50 breaks. He isn't even 10 yet. So I doubt it was a rumour about Hendry. He was just born to play snooker I guess
 
Pidge said:
Perfect age to start playing. You are developed enough to take things in, like instruction which I'm sure he must have gotten even if it was something simple like hit pot this red rather than this red, but young enough to not fear learning new things and still young enough to enjoy the crap out of it playing 8 hours straight.

I've been working with a youngster for a while now with his father and he is starting to make 50 breaks. He isn't even 10 yet. So I doubt it was a rumour about Hendry. He was just born to play snooker I guess
Click to expand...

Yeah I've heard it several times, so I wouldn't be surprised if it were true either. You just never know with stories like that. I think it's clear he was playing to a very high standard very quickly, at least; he turned pro around three years after first picking up a cue and won his first ranking title a year or two after that.

It's amazing how good kids can be at that age.
 
Ron Swanson said:
The language thing...german is very similar to english, far and away the easiest language for english speakers to learn, whereas mandarin is probably about the most difficult.

Anyway, following the boom in snooker's popularity in the 1980s, thousands of british kids got 6x3 snooker tables as christmas or birthday presents, me included, and played with them in our undersized bedrooms, very often alone. Virtually all developed near perfect cue actions without books, videos, coaching, a pushy parent or anything. Just kids, learning on their own.

How do you explain this? By your reckoning you must have these things or you'll never progress. There are thousands of good cueists in the uk that would vehemently disagree with your assessment about what it takes to become a good player.

Anyone can become a good player if they start young enough. Those that go on to become great are those with the biggest talent.
Click to expand...

Near perfect cue action huh?

That's why Nic Barrow and so many other snooker coaches have a great business correcting people's stroke errors.

Let's see a video of you and your "near perfect" cue action. Given all that you have written about how important it is you ought to be KILLING the ghost in any game.

Again...research shows that DESIRE and DISCIPLINE are the two predictors of reaching world class level. Not "talent". Overwhelmingly those who reach world class level have both in abundance.

Look I respect your opinion but that's all it is. Your idea of talent is romantic and is a good excuse as to why you or me or any of us schlubs aren't better than we are.

I have a great local story that's been playing out for the past two months of just how important dedicated deliberate practice is. Sean King is a good local player. Perhaps shortstop level or slightly under. Two months ago he decided to dedicated himself to reaching a higher level. He has put in a solid 7 hours a day for that time not only playing but working on many other techniques in his game.

The change is dramatic. First he adopted Shane Van Boeing's method of aiming and worked on that and immediately his shotmaking percentages went up. He won a decent sized amateur tournament against a tough player convincingly just a week after starting to train with that method of aiming.

Then he went on to work on his safety game and his banking and pattern play. His level of accuracy when playing safeties is super high now. He lays down safes that are extremely tough to escape from.

The end result is that he just won a semi-pro regional event beating both Robb Saez and Shane McMinn, two super tough players. Is this because Sean is more talented or because he is working harder and learning more to be able to execute on that knowledge?
 
SakuJack said:
This is it, basically.

Talent alone isn't enough to become a great player - but it is still necessary.

Stephen Hendry made a 50 break two weeks after first picking up a cue. What is that if not talent?
Yes, his professionalism, dedication and sheer desire to win also drove him to the top of the game - you can't do what he did without all of those things, but you can't do it without talent either.
Click to expand...

Context? You can put lots of kids on a table and see them pocketing balls and with a little instruction they can get the basics pretty quickly. Kids are sponges.

What you don't know is how many hundreds or thousands did the same thing and then just as quickly pursued other hobbies.

My daughter copied a complex hip-hop routine last week just by observing the dancers at the studio. She has been copying dance routines since she was two and mom played tons of ballet and modern dance videos for her. She is undisciplined though and far from being a professional dancer. If she decides to go that route I have no doubt that she could make it and be a great dancer. But I have zero illusion that it's because of her superior talent. It's because of her exposure to hundreds of dance videos and dancers in live studios with her mom who has been dancing since she was six.
 
(((Satori))) said:
You really think that computer analysis and the internet has made the players today stronger than the players a decade ago?
Click to expand...

I think so.
My view changed last spring. I did lose 8-ball tournament 16 cup phase to 17 year old super strong player. It is not that I did lose but the way how he pulled it off.
We had race to 7 alternative break format. He had super strong break and 2 first breaks he murdered rack but got kicked on back corner and another flew off table slightly.
I did not manage to punish him because slick slick cloth and he got away with it and did lead 4-1.
Then I Br,clear from his empty break and Br again to tie 4 apiece. I was sure it will make feel pressure and I was feeling confident.
He break next rack ... And for my surprise he was using maybe 60% of his earlier break and did run out. Then I got first dry break and he clears table and break run for close the match. I NEVER seen young gun change totally different break during match. They don't usually have discipline to do that.

I met him again couple months later and we gambled whole evening small. We played 10-ball race to 6 per set. I did couple times run set in 2 innings so you could tell I played strong. Still he was breaking beastly and end of night he end up winning by 3 sets.
I was stunned. How can this kid beat me when I play my A-game.
I asked who teaches you? You can't learn all that stuff alone.

He answered; Internet!!!!!
 
JB Cases said:
What you don't know is how many hundreds or thousands did the same thing and then just as quickly pursued other hobbies.
Click to expand...

Are you implying that potentially thousands of children have made half-century breaks in their bedrooms, and then just decided to give the game up and do something else?

:confused::confused::confused:
 
yep, because you simply don't know what you don't know. Even this story about Hendry is more legend than fact. Just because we like the romantic story of the prodigious Golden Child who was destined to be great at XYZ sport and nothing else doesn't mean it's true to life.

If a million children got the toy snooker tables for christmas then it's probably a statistical fact that a great number of them showed "promise" within weeks of getting that toy. Just because we want to live our billiard fantasies vicariously through our heroes and that fantasy is one where the talented boy goes on to fulfill his destiny doesn't mean that this is what really happened.

Stephen Hendry, Ronnie O'Sullivan, Judd Trump, these are special players no doubt. They do have the "it" quality that separates them from the field. Is that superior talent, some character trait, more confidence?

None of them got there without intense amounts of practice and training though. And yes, millions of children out of billions can potentially pick up a cue and show some "talent" for the task. Just as millions of others can show "natural aptitude" for any number of tasks.

The human body and brain are the clay, how it gets sculpted determines the outcome.
 
JB Cases said:
yep, because you simply don't know what you don't know.
Click to expand...

Then you're showing, again, your total lack of understanding of the game.

JB Cases said:
Even this story about Hendry is more legend than fact. Just because we like the romantic story of the prodigious Golden Child who was destined to be great at XYZ sport and nothing else doesn't mean it's true to life.

If a million children got the toy snooker tables for christmas then it's probably a statistical fact that a great number of them showed "promise" within weeks of getting that toy. Just because we want to live our billiard fantasies vicariously through our heroes and that fantasy is one where the talented boy goes on to fulfill his destiny doesn't mean that this is what really happened.

Stephen Hendry, Ronnie O'Sullivan, Judd Trump, these are special players no doubt. They do have the "it" quality that separates them from the field. Is that superior talent, some character trait, more confidence?

None of them got there without intense amounts of practice and training though. And yes, millions of children out of billions can potentially pick up a cue and show some "talent" for the task. Just as millions of others can show "natural aptitude" for any number of tasks.

The human body and brain are the clay, how it gets sculpted determines the outcome.
Click to expand...

It's not a romantic story; nobody is pretending it doesn't take years of hard work, years of obsession, to reach the level of a Hendry or a Ronnie. But it also takes talent. To deny that is ludicrous.

Reanne Evans supposedly made a 20 break the very first time she picked up a cue. I guess you're going to claim that's a somewhat regular occurrence, too, because "we don't know what we don't know"?
 
SakuJack said:
Then you're showing, again, your total lack of understanding of the game.



It's not a romantic story; nobody is pretending it doesn't take years of hard work, years of obsession, to reach the level of a Hendry or a Ronnie. But it also takes talent. To deny that is ludicrous.

Reanne Evans supposedly made a 20 break the very first time she picked up a cue. I guess you're going to claim that's a somewhat regular occurrence, too, because "we don't know what we don't know"?
Click to expand...

So, you are going to tell me that you know for a fact that every child who shows any aptitude for any sport goes on to excel at that sport? I mean you have the power to look into the live of MILLIONS of children to see what they have done in their lives so that you can sort them into what groups you think that they will belong to for their lives?

You only know Reanne's story because she tells it. You do NOT KNOW the stories of perhaps hundreds of thousands of kids like here that maybe did similar things on the table and who then decided not to pursue snooker or weren't encouraged to pursue snooker. IN other words you have the testimony of a FEW - as in an extremely small sample size - of people who just happened to be at the top of their field. You don't even know if it's true, you just accept these things at face value because they sound good and fit YOUR narrative.

What if Kelly Fisher says she couldn't run three balls when she first picked up a cue? Does that mean she was an untalented hack?

The point is that research DOES NOT FIND "talent" or prodigy among world class performers. What it does find is desire, dedication, and encouragement.

The thing that research points to is that those who have overwhelming desire to master an activity usually do and become world class at it. They are the ones who have been willing to do all it takes and practice harder and longer to devour everything they can so as to understand everything about whatever it is they have set their mind to being the best at.
 
JB Cases said:
So, you are going to tell me that you know for a fact that every child who shows any aptitude for any sport goes on to excel at that sport?
Click to expand...

I haven't said that at all. If you read what I've posted, I've made it pretty clear I believe that both talent and extreme dedication are needed to become great.

You won't find any great players who didn't work hard to get there, but you won't find any who didn't have natural aptitude or, gasp, talent in the first place either.

JB Cases said:
How so? I point to actual research and you and others have anecdotes.
Click to expand...

lol, actual research like this?

JB Cases said:
I have a great local story that's been playing out for the past two months of just how important dedicated deliberate practice is. Sean King is a good local player. Perhaps shortstop level or slightly under. Two months ago he decided to dedicated himself to reaching a higher level. He has put in a solid 7 hours a day for that time not only playing but working on many other techniques in his game.

The change is dramatic. First he adopted Shane Van Boeing's method of aiming and worked on that and immediately his shotmaking percentages went up. He won a decent sized amateur tournament against a tough player convincingly just a week after starting to train with that method of aiming.

Then he went on to work on his safety game and his banking and pattern play. His level of accuracy when playing safeties is super high now. He lays down safes that are extremely tough to escape from.

The end result is that he just won a semi-pro regional event beating both Robb Saez and Shane McMinn, two super tough players. Is this because Sean is more talented or because he is working harder and learning more to be able to execute on that knowledge?
Click to expand...

Or would that be an anecdote?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top