cut induced throw?

Poolplaya9 said:
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.
Click to expand...

The idea coaches tell rafael nadal how to hit a back hand winner or lionel messi how to dribble is fanciful nonsense. Talent is talent. Let Patrick take a 5 year sabbatical and do nothing but teach john barton how to play pool and see what the results are. They both appear to have plenty of time on their hands...

And i see no 'conflict' between my two posts? :confused:
 
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...

Sorry, bubs, but you are simplifying things too much.

I have a huge talent for chemistry, but it bores me and I never had any desire to go past what was required for my education.

I enjoy making things from wood and metals. I taught myself how to build cues when I was 18 and made my first half-splices within a year...no books, no videos, never talked to another cuemaker. I wasn't talented at wood and metal work. I know this because my older brother is legitimately talented at crafting and fabricating. What I did because of sheer willpower and desire, he would do without a second thought. Watching me build something is to watch someone make mistakes, learn from them, repeat the steps and eventually have something of which I am proud. Watching my brother make something is to see poetry embodied.

{sidebar, it was the same when I bought a pool table at 13, I'd practice and he'd kill me without putting in one tenth of the time}

All of that is to illustrate the difference in talent because this next part is to prove you wrong: I have built ten times as much as my brother and my best is now well beyond anything he can do. I wouldn't lose a game of pool to my brother because I practiced.

See, he never had the desire for the things at which he was truly talented. I was shown at every turn when I was young that I didn't have the talent, but I had the desire.

If you are correct in any way, then my desire is my talent. I've always had that...not to be better than everybody else, but to be better than I was, to be able to work at what I wanted to do. That, and that alone, made me better than most at many things.
 
Ron Swanson said:
The idea coaches tell rafael nadal how to hit a back hand winner or lionel messi how to dribble is fanciful nonsense. Talent is talent. Let Patrick take a 5 year sabbatical and do nothing but teach john barton how to play pool and see what the results are. They both appear to have plenty of time on their hands...

And i see no 'conflict' between my two posts? :confused:
Click to expand...

Hmm...

I don't get how you can say that 'talent is talent' and also say that coaches don't tell elite athletes how to do something. Have you ever considered that an outside perspective is valuable to those with talent precisely because they have the ability to physically do what is suggested?
 
ElCorazonFrio said:
Hmm...

I don't get how you can say that 'talent is talent' and also say that coaches don't tell elite athletes how to do something. Have you ever considered that an outside perspective is valuable to those with talent precisely because they have the ability to physically do what is suggested?
Click to expand...

Let's do the experiment i suggest and pick this up in 5 year's times, when barton will be world champ and Patrick's nerdiness in high demand.
 
ElCorazonFrio said:
Sorry, bubs, but you are simplifying things too much.

I have a huge talent for chemistry, but it bores me and I never had any desire to go past what was required for my education.

I enjoy making things from wood and metals. I taught myself how to build cues when I was 18 and made my first half-splices within a year...no books, no videos, never talked to another cuemaker. I wasn't talented at wood and metal work. I know this because my older brother is legitimately talented at crafting and fabricating. What I did because of sheer willpower and desire, he would do without a second thought. Watching me build something is to watch someone make mistakes, learn from them, repeat the steps and eventually have something of which I am proud. Watching my brother make something is to see poetry embodied.

{sidebar, it was the same when I bought a pool table at 13, I'd practice and he'd kill me without putting in one tenth of the time}

All of that is to illustrate the difference in talent because this next part is to prove you wrong: I have built ten times as much as my brother and my best is now well beyond anything he can do. I wouldn't lose a game of pool to my brother because I practiced.

See, he never had the desire for the things at which he was truly talented. I was shown at every turn when I was young that I didn't have the talent, but I had the desire.

If you are correct in any way, then my desire is my talent. I've always had that...not to be better than everybody else, but to be better than I was, to be able to work at what I wanted to do. That, and that alone, made me better than most at many things.
Click to expand...

Simplify, you say?

:rolleyes:
 
Patrick Johnson said:
But you'll still be clueless and nameless. Life just isn't fair.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Oh dear.

Why are there players out there who have decades of experience and still cannot play? Why are there players who've learned every technical issue there is and still cannot play?

Talent, Patrick. You've either got it or you ain't.
 
Ron Swanson said:
Oh dear.

Why are there players out there who have decades of experience and still cannot play? Why are there players who've learned every technical issue there is and still cannot play?

Talent, Patrick. You've either got it or you ain't.
Click to expand...

Today...

You are the object of their attention & 'affection'.

Some can see & relate to natural talent that can do things that quite simply can not be taught to others & some can not.

Michael Jordan's High school coach cut him.

Some want disciplined regimented structured cookie cutter learning & just can not relate to the mind & heart of a talented or super talented individual.

Your'e pounding your head up against a brick will, but you know that. It's just that hope remains eternal.


https://youtu.be/uVzr6qWa3Vc
 
Last edited:
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...

C'mon, you're reaching here. All of these things are easily discovered just by playing the game, or by hanging out with good players and observing what they do and trying to duplicate it. Most great players have had several mentors along the way who showed them some of the tricks of the trade. You don't need knowledge of the physics behind these tricks, you just need to know how to hit the ball correctly for the required shots and to pay attention to the results.

Sorry, when I think about the physics of the game I am thinking about using computational techniques that require lots of math, and experimental studies that require tightly controlled conditions and expensive measuring devices. You don't need any of this stuff to play jam up pool if you have the latent ability and the desire to put in the requisite amount of time.

Just about everything that you need to know to play the game at the highest level is readily apparent to an observant player, and will be learned through diligent practice and focused play. One does not need to know how any of it works in order to be able to execute it flawlessly. It's the execution part where most of us fail, not the lack of understanding of the science behind it all.
 
Sloppy Pockets said:
C'mon, you're reaching here. All of these things are easily discovered just by playing the game, or by hanging out with good players and observing what they do and trying to duplicate it. Most great players have had several mentors along the way who showed them some of the tricks of the trade. You don't need knowledge of the physics behind these tricks, you just need to know how to hit the ball correctly for the required shots and to pay attention to the results.

Sorry, when I think about the physics of the game I am thinking about using computational techniques that require lots of math, and experimental studies that require tightly controlled conditions and expensive measuring devices. You don't need any of this stuff to play jam up pool if you have the latent ability and the desire to put in the requisite amount of time.

Just about everything that you need to know to play the game at the highest level is readily apparent to an observant player, and will be learned through diligent practice and focused play. One does not need to know how any of it works in order to be able to execute it flawlessly. It's the execution part where most of us fail, not the lack of understanding of the science behind it all.
Click to expand...

I agree that no one needs to know the math of the coefficient of restitution in order to play pool. But there are certain things that Dr. Dave shows which are not intuitive and which are not commonly taught.

I don't think that the understanding of the science is what's important. The knowledge of what is ACTUALLY happening IS what is important. For example, after having followed the links to videos in this thread I was able to use some of the information to play better one pocket yesterday.

How? Well, it was simply watching the slow motion videos on what is actually happening on the hit of a rail shot that jolted me into being more careful about how I hit them when playing one hole and this allowed me to play better position than I have been.
 
Sloppy Pockets said:
...when I think about the physics of the game I am thinking about using computational techniques that require lots of math, and experimental studies that require tightly controlled conditions and expensive measuring devices.
Click to expand...
And I think Dave's point is that those things aren't the physics of pool - they're just ways of studying and talking about it. Pool physics is what happens on the pool table, which all of us "consider" and cope with every day whether we can explain it or not - knowing some of the explanations can help with the coping.

pj
chgo
 
JB Cases said:
I don't think that the understanding of the science is what's important. The knowledge of what is ACTUALLY happening IS what is important.
Click to expand...
Those are the same things. "Understanding the science" doesn't mean knowing a bunch of formulas - it just means knowing what is actually happening.

Most people think "science" is something academics do - it isn't. We all "do science" all the time, from the day we're born - we learn what to expect by observing what happens, and change our expectations as we accumulate observations. Academic science is the same thing, just in greater detail (and more people telling you you're wrong).

pj
chgo
 
ENGLISH! said:
Today...

You are the object of their attention & 'affection'.

Some can see & relate to natural talent that can do things that quite simply can not be taught to others & some can not.

Michael Jordan's High school coach cut him.

Some want disciplined regimented structured cookie cutter learning & just can not relate to the mind & heart of a talented or super talented individual.

Your'e pounding your head up against a brick will, but you know that. It's just that hope remains eternal.


https://youtu.be/uVzr6qWa3Vc
Click to expand...

You should check your sources before using stories to make a point. The internet works well for fact checking.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-b...an-really-cut-high-school-team-215707476.html

Once again many studies have FAILED to find "talent".

My six year old can sing, she can dance and she can act. She seemingly has "talent" in these areas. But without hard work these natural leanings won't matter at all. Another six year old who studies these things will leave her crying at the auditions when she gets the parts and mine doesn't.

Yesterday a very good player complimented me. When he saw me playing in a $150 entry tournament and making everything I shot at with such confidence he thought I was a very good natural shotmaker. I explained to him then that it was an aiming system I used to line me up. So yesterday he came and said that he wanted to learn it because he was missing shots he should make.

And for context, this person gave a well known prolific traveling instructor who gambles the 8 and waxed him. Still he has an open mind and is willing to do more work to improve his game.

The nature/nurture debate will probably never end. And books like the Sports Gene do make compelling cases that in some sports genetics play an important parts. And of course a person who is more spatially aware or who has good hand eye coordination can be seen as "talented" in tasks that require those things. But that doesn't mean that another person who is not as "gifted" can make up the difference with knowledge and training.

Is Shane Van Boeing the best American player because he was born with "pool genes" into a pool playing family OR is he the best because he was exposed to pool at a decently high level from a young age AND he put in up to 18 hours a day training?

As they say rising tides lift all boats. So the greater availability of knowledge and demonstration of that knowledge should raise the overall ability of pool players across the board. And it has.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Those are the same things. "Understanding the science" doesn't mean knowing a bunch of formulas - it just means knowing what is actually happening.

Most people think "science" is something academics do - it isn't. We all "do science" all the time, from the day we're born - we learn what to expect by observing what happens, and change our expectations as we accumulate observations. Academic science is the same thing, just in greater detail (and more people telling you you're wrong).

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

I agree... except for the part about telling everyone that they're wrong.

The reason is because when in one's mind it is, 'I do this & then that happens.', they are correct & not wrong.

There is no need to pound it on to them that they are not fully & technically correct. They have come to the simplicity of the final end result which is what it is ALL about in the actual playing of the game.

If I had known all of the science involved in hitting with english initially I may have never hit with it when first starting out & would most likely have become afraid of it as so many seem to be.

Earl spent 16 hours a day, EVERY day for a year, when he 16, on the table learning HOW to the 'science' & not what & why regarding the 'science'.

IMO, It is much better to learn the HOW TO DO first & then PERHAPS, MAYBE learn the what & why of the science, but the what & why is totally unnecessary.

It is the HOW TO DO THAT IS TOTALLY NECESSARY.

Best Wishes
 
Last edited:
The "Unmentionable Words"...you used them. *gasp*

JB Cases said:
You should check your sources before using stories to make a point. The internet works well for fact checking.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-b...an-really-cut-high-school-team-215707476.html
Once again many studies have FAILED to find "talent".
My six year old can sing, she can dance and she can act. She seemingly has "talent" in these areas. But without hard work these natural leanings won't matter at all. Another six year old who studies these things will leave her crying at the auditions when she gets the parts and mine doesn't.
Yesterday a very good player complimented me. When he saw me playing in a $150 entry tournament and making everything I shot at with such confidence he thought I was a very good natural shotmaker. I explained to him then that it was an aiming system I used to line me up. So yesterday he came and said that he wanted to learn it because he was missing shots he should make.
And for context, this person gave a well known prolific traveling instructor who gambles the 8 and waxed him. Still he has an open mind and is willing to do more work to improve his game.
The nature/nurture debate will probably never end. And books like the Sports Gene do make compelling cases that in some sports genetics play an important parts. And of course a person who is more spatially aware or who has good hand eye coordination can be seen as "talented" in tasks that require those things. But that doesn't mean that another person who is not as "gifted" can make up the difference with knowledge and training.
Is Shane Van Boeing the best American player because he was born with "pool genes" into a pool playing family OR is he the best because he was exposed to pool at a decently high level from a young age AND he put in up to 18 hours a day training?
As they say rising tides lift all boats. So the greater availability of knowledge and demonstration of that knowledge should raise the overall ability of pool players across the board. And it has.
Click to expand...
Oh noooooooooo..you typed the 'unmentionable words'=> Aiming Systems:eek:
I agree the system you use is the most reliable and repeatable. However, the growlers on here will rally to those words and start more chaos.
I lean toward the 18 hours a day training to overcome any deficiencies of 'talent'.
Along with the "unmentionable system".
Regards. :wink:
 
Patrick Johnson said:
You misunderstand. Being an academic scientist means having other scientists looking for errors in your work - it's how science works.

pj
chgo[/QUOTeE]

No, You're wrong.

I understand the point you are trying to make.

You know that that was not the actual broad topic being discussed.

Yet you pick one sentence out of context to make a 'you don't understand' statement & hopefully change the subject & distract from the original more broad topic.

A tactic used very often here on AZB.

Best Wishes.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top