cut induced throw?

[JB Cases]

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.

Funny I was going to say the exact same thing about your overly anal position with the concept of objectivity.

My stance on CTE remains the same. Those who put the time in to learn it properly derive the most benefit from it. Especially since CTE is 99.99% objective in my opinion and experience. I.e. far from being a trial and error way to learn to aim it is an objective step-by-step way to align to the shot.

Because people like Hal and Stan and many others have taken the time to study aiming systems and the effects of colliding balls like Dr. Dave does and present their findings it means that many more players are not forced to discover these things on their own. This shortens the learning curve considerably in my opinion.

You speaking for everyone is laughable. You have no idea what goes through Michael Jordan's head when he thinks about basketball or Efren's head when he thinks about pool. You have no idea whether any given person ONLY does trial and error with no thought to cause and effect or whether they actually think about the underlying reason why things happen. As humans are individuals it only stands to reason that people treat any activity across the spectrum of analysis.

For example I often will copy/paste code for my site that was written by someone else without any desire to learn WHY the code works. It produces the effect I want and that's enough. For other tasks I have learned to code so that I can manipulate the results and tweak them on demand.

Anyway, there is no doubt in my mind that today's players are overall better than those of a decade ago, than those 20,30, 50 years in the past. Not individually but on average. And the reason is access to knowledge that is easily available.

 

[JB Cases]

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

I agree with you. Back in the 80s when I was coming up and even throughout the 90s players were very sparing with who they shared with.

EXCEPT - in Germany in the 90s where pool was treated as a sport we all helped each other and even organized clinics and regular training.

Since the advent of the internet the amount of available information and instruction has exploded. I fully agree with you. Now it is literally possible to get relevant, clear and useful information on how to play and be putting it to use the same day to turn in a better performance.

 

[(((Satori)))]

Funny I was going to say the exact same thing about your overly anal position with the concept of objectivity.

My stance on CTE remains the same. Those who put the time in to learn it properly derive the most benefit from it. Especially since CTE is 99.99% objective in my opinion and experience. I.e. far from being a trial and error way to learn to aim it is an objective step-by-step way to align to the shot.

Because people like Hal and Stan and many others have taken the time to study aiming systems and the effects of colliding balls like Dr. Dave does and present their findings it means that many more players are not forced to discover these things on their own. This shortens the learning curve considerably in my opinion.

You speaking for everyone is laughable. You have no idea what goes through Michael Jordan's head when he thinks about basketball or Efren's head when he thinks about pool. You have no idea whether any given person ONLY does trial and error with no thought to cause and effect or whether they actually think about the underlying reason why things happen. As humans are individuals it only stands to reason that people treat any activity across the spectrum of analysis.

For example I often will copy/paste code for my site that was written by someone else without any desire to learn WHY the code works. It produces the effect I want and that's enough. For other tasks I have learned to code so that I can manipulate the results and tweak them on demand.

Anyway, there is no doubt in my mind that today's players are overall better than those of a decade ago, than those 20,30, 50 years in the past. Not individually but on average. And the reason is access to knowledge that is easily available.

What knowledge?

Name the knowledge that players have access to today that makes them better than the players 20 years ago.

 

[Pidge]

Funny I was going to say the exact same thing about your overly anal position with the concept of objectivity.

My stance on CTE remains the same. Those who put the time in to learn it properly derive the most benefit from it. Especially since CTE is 99.99% objective in my opinion and experience. I.e. far from being a trial and error way to learn to aim it is an objective step-by-step way to align to the shot.

Because people like Hal and Stan and many others have taken the time to study aiming systems and the effects of colliding balls like Dr. Dave does and present their findings it means that many more players are not forced to discover these things on their own. This shortens the learning curve considerably in my opinion.

You speaking for everyone is laughable. You have no idea what goes through Michael Jordan's head when he thinks about basketball or Efren's head when he thinks about pool. You have no idea whether any given person ONLY does trial and error with no thought to cause and effect or whether they actually think about the underlying reason why things happen. As humans are individuals it only stands to reason that people treat any activity across the spectrum of analysis.

For example I often will copy/paste code for my site that was written by someone else without any desire to learn WHY the code works. It produces the effect I want and that's enough. For other tasks I have learned to code so that I can manipulate the results and tweak them on demand.

Anyway, there is no doubt in my mind that today's players are overall better than those of a decade ago, than those 20,30, 50 years in the past. Not individually but on average. And the reason is access to knowledge that is easily available.

I agree with the very last paragraph strongly. Advances in teaching techniques, computer analysis, the invention of the Internet and so on have made modern players far more consistent and on average better than those decades ago. I relate it to snooker in that in snookers prime during the 70s and 80s when it was the United Kingdoms main sport and far more people were participating, how many of the top 16 then would make it into the top 16 now? I would hazard a guess at 2 or 3.

 

[(((Satori)))]

I agree with the very last paragraph strongly. Advances in teaching techniques, computer analysis, the invention of the Internet and so on have made modern players far more consistent and on average better than those decades ago. I relate it to snooker in that in snookers prime during the 70s and 80s when it was the United Kingdoms main sport and far more people were participating, how many of the top 16 then would make it into the top 16 now? I would hazard a guess at 2 or 3.

You really think that computer analysis and the internet has made the players today stronger than the players a decade ago?

 

[JB Cases]

My opinion.

Assuming there is such a thing as "talent". For pool let's say that two people start from zero and with no instruction one of them is able to make shots and even run 2-3 balls in a row and the other one struggles to make even one shot. We would say that the first person has more talent or natural ability.

If both of those players continue and have the exact same training which one will be better in a year?

I say we don't know.

If the "naturally talented" one though gets half the training and the one who struggled gets better training then I presume that the latter will be the better player in a year. Maybe he will not look as fluid (although he might) but I would bet on him to turn in consistently higher finishes and I would bet on him to consistently beat the "talented" one when matching up.

Basically there is a group of people on here who thinks that most human beings are simply incapable of learning everything one needs to know and do to become a world class pool player. As if this is some sort of magic task where only the select few can obtain a high degree of proficiency.

I fundamentally disagree. But I would put out there that for those that believe this on AZB you are in that "aren't smart enough or talented enough" group as evidenced by your own lack of sufficient skill. I feel sad that you don't think enough of yourselves to think that you can continue to improve. Barring physical or mental disability I think every person has it in them to reach quite high levels of skill in pool. What they don't have is desire, time and opportunity due to life expecting them to fulfill other responsibilities.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Funny I was going to say the exact same thing about your overly anal position with the concept of objectivity.

My stance on CTE remains the same. Those who put the time in to learn it properly derive the most benefit from it. Especially since CTE is 99.99% objective in my opinion and experience. I.e. far from being a trial and error way to learn to aim it is an objective step-by-step way to align to the shot.

Because people like Hal and Stan and many others have taken the time to study aiming systems and the effects of colliding balls like Dr. Dave does and present their findings it means that many more players are not forced to discover these things on their own. This shortens the learning curve considerably in my opinion.

You speaking for everyone is laughable. You have no idea what goes through Michael Jordan's head when he thinks about basketball or Efren's head when he thinks about pool. You have no idea whether any given person ONLY does trial and error with no thought to cause and effect or whether they actually think about the underlying reason why things happen. As humans are individuals it only stands to reason that people treat any activity across the spectrum of analysis.

For example I often will copy/paste code for my site that was written by someone else without any desire to learn WHY the code works. It produces the effect I want and that's enough. For other tasks I have learned to code so that I can manipulate the results and tweak them on demand.

Anyway, there is no doubt in my mind that today's players are overall better than those of a decade ago, than those 20,30, 50 years in the past. Not individually but on average. And the reason is access to knowledge that is easily available.

John,

All I am going to say is thanks for the laughs.

Best Wishes.

 

[JB Cases]

What knowledge?

Name the knowledge that players have access to today that makes them better than the players 20 years ago.

Well, Dr. Dave's slow motion videos, the videos on methods, various aiming systems, kicking systems, banking systems, position systems (Little Joe's tapes for example).

A vast amount of wwyd discussions, a vast amount of professional examples of pattern play at the highest level.

And even access to professional players, through clinics, videos, and instant messaging.

 

[Pidge]

You really think that computer analysis and the internet has made the players today stronger than the players a decade ago?

Not just that. Better more consistent equipment, the amount of money involved in snooker in particular today... They all contribute.

Computer analysis makes an instructors job a lot easier. They can simply create perfect technique with it. Jimmy white, Alex Higgins... They didn't have perfect technique. Not one of the current top 16 doesn't have perfect technique.

The Internet... Want to find a place to play, a league to join, a practice partner, local tournaments, the best instructor in town.... They're all just a few clicks away. Back in the 80s you literally had a phone book and word of mouth. Are you really saying these things won't help players get better?

 

[Sloppy Pockets]

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.

If you have the background in this field, good for you. The fact is that most people don't understand the language of physics, and all this talk confuses them, and even gives them a faulty understanding of what is really going on.

All you have to do is listen to what some of the top pros have to say about things like power, force, momentum, acceleration, kinetic and potential energy and the like and it becomes immediately apparent that they don't have a clue what they are talking about. Without at least a year of college physics and two years of calculus these concepts are black boxes to them.

Most pool players are like that, but they keep hearing from the very vocal intelligentsia here on the forum that this knowledge will actually help them play better. I'm not buying it. I can follow a lot of Dr. Dave's technical proofs (although I sometimes need help from my old college physics text, and my algebra is a bit rusty from disuse). I find it all very interesting, but I haven't learned a thing that helped me run a rack any better, or even pocket a ball better. I think I actually lost a bit to be honest.

I was a lot happier when I thought I could someday elicit magical responses from the CB by developing a quality stroke. Why work hard on your stroke when you now know that all that matters in where you hit it, at what speed, and at what angle? How do you continue working on visualizing the tip accelerating through the ball after you are made painfully aware that follow through has no bearing on the CB after about 1/8" of travel?

Some people just have to slice and dice everything into smaller components, as if the reductionist view was the only one to have any validity. I have a much more holistic view of the universe, and that view extends to pool knowledge.

 

[ENGLISH!]

John,

How then would you explain all those supposed know it all instructors that can't play really that well, comparatively speaking to guys like Earl, CJ, Sigel, Miz, etc.?

Best Wishes.

 

[JB Cases]

John,

How then would you explain all those supposed know it all instructors that can't play really that well, comparatively speaking to guys like Earl, CJ, Sigel Miz, etc.?

Best Wishes.

Might as well name names and then we can compare performances vs. life situations to see if they actually DO play really well comparatively.

Guys like Earl, CJ, Sigel etc...devoted their entire life to pool to reach the levels they did.

 

[Sloppy Pockets]

Well, Dr. Dave's slow motion videos, the videos on methods, various aiming systems, kicking systems, banking systems, position systems (Little Joe's tapes for example).

A vast amount of wwyd discussions, a vast amount of professional examples of pattern play at the highest level.

And even access to professional players, through clinics, videos, and instant messaging.

Yes, all of these things may have contributed to a few very mediocre players becoming less mediocre players. But the real reason they are mediocre is that they haven't been willing or able to spend thousands of hours at the table learning these things through their own eyes. You keep bringing up the 10,000 hours to mastery idea vs. natural talent. OK, who spends 10,000 actual hours at the table and still isn't a runout player?

 

[(((Satori)))]

Well, Dr. Dave's slow motion videos, the videos on methods, various aiming systems, kicking systems, banking systems, position systems (Little Joe's tapes for example).

A vast amount of wwyd discussions, a vast amount of professional examples of pattern play at the highest level.

And even access to professional players, through clinics, videos, and instant messaging.

Are you talking about beginers being better than they were 20 years ago?

What about shortstops? Do they play better than the shortstops of 20 years ago iyo?

And do you really think the above has made an impact on the level the pros play at? The kicking has gotten better for sure but it is not because of systems. The pros knew all of the diamond systems back then. Aiming is the same for the pros, position is the same. Jumping has jump sticks now. The equipment has changed making somewhat of an impact and iron has sharpened ironmakkng the pros get better over time but the important knowledge is still the same. With the one exception being that of racking I guess.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Might as well name names and then we can compare performances vs. life situations to see if they actually DO play really well comparatively.

Guys like Earl, CJ, Sigel etc...devoted their entire life to pool to reach the levels they did.

But those players did not 'study' & know all of the physics as far as I know.

And they did not devote their 'entire' lives as you say. They got married, etc.

And I would think that rather many of the 'knowledgeable' instructors dedicated most of their lives as well.

So... what about that comparison?

Best Wishes.

PS How about you name the 'knowledgeable' instructors names to match the players that I've named?

 

[measureman]

You really think that computer analysis and the internet has made the players today stronger than the players a decade ago?

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.

 

[ENGLISH!]

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.

I agree with you & my experience was similar, but yours seems better & your old guy was more generous than the one from whom I stole most all that I know. I'm very glad that I did not take physics til after I started playing this Great Game of ours.

I personally think things one learns on their own takes a more deep rooting as truth & can more easily be added to & tweaked when something new to them comes along.

Best 2 Ya.

 

[ElCorazonFrio]

If you have the background in this field, good for you. The fact is that most people don't understand the language of physics, and all this talk confuses them, and even gives them a faulty understanding of what is really going on.

All you have to do is listen to what some of the top pros have to say about things like power, force, momentum, acceleration, kinetic and potential energy and the like and it becomes immediately apparent that they don't have a clue what they are talking about. Without at least a year of college physics and two years of calculus these concepts are black boxes to them.

Most pool players are like that, but they keep hearing from the very vocal intelligentsia here on the forum that this knowledge will actually help them play better. I'm not buying it. I can follow a lot of Dr. Dave's technical proofs (although I sometimes need help from my old college physics text, and my algebra is a bit rusty from disuse). I find it all very interesting, but I haven't learned a thing that helped me run a rack any better, or even pocket a ball better. I think I actually lost a bit to be honest.

I was a lot happier when I thought I could someday elicit magical responses from the CB by developing a quality stroke. Why work hard on your stroke when you now know that all that matters in where you hit it, at what speed, and at what angle? How do you continue working on visualizing the tip accelerating through the ball after you are made painfully aware that follow through has no bearing on the CB after about 1/8" of travel?

Some people just have to slice and dice everything into smaller components, as if the reductionist view was the only one to have any validity. I have a much more holistic view of the universe, and that view extends to pool knowledge.

Perhaps most don't benefit from it. I do.

I would say that it is the fault of those explaining the concepts if their audience doesn't understand...providing those analyzing are correct.

I work as a mechanical engineer. I have had to explain concepts to vice presidents of multi-billion dollar companies and I've had to do it in a way that they can understand.

There are things like you mention, the velocity of the cue and the placement of the hit are all that matter and that is perfectly true. What is left out is that what we call 'stroke' is repeating that. I'm sorry that you've not understood that, as it is a very important element to the practical purpose of that knowledge. One must find the way to deliver the cue in a consistent and controlled manner. That is a realm which isn't discussed as much, biomechanics. What we need to do is limited by what the body can do.

I think that you may be better served by not reading the scientific threads. I make no judgment on people not getting the concept. One must realize that the pen-to-paper part of this is simply one small building block. Anyone who has said that it is a vital building block is simply incorrect.

Good luck and shoot straight.

 

[JB Cases]

Yes, all of these things may have contributed to a few very mediocre players becoming less mediocre players. But the real reason they are mediocre is that they haven't been willing or able to spend thousands of hours at the table learning these things through their own eyes. You keep bringing up the 10,000 hours to mastery idea vs. natural talent. OK, who spends 10,000 actual hours at the table and still isn't a runout player?

I don't believe I have said anything about 10,000 hours.

But let's say that a person who spends 10k hours with no training will become a master player.

What level will a player with 2500 hours but tons of access to knowledge become?

Do you think that videos on YouTube explaining how to play pool get up to a million views and they only affect a few players?

I think you are missing the point. In my opinion if you went to any well known pool room today and rounded up the best 20 players under 35 and you were able to compare them to the best 20 players under 35 in 1990 and I believe that the modern players would rob them. And the reason is because I think that the modern players would be overall better players. Not individually of course but on average the modern players will know more about aiming, pattern play, banking, kicking, safety play, breaking, and masse' shots. Modern players will on average understand more about what is actually happening when they shoot.

That's my opinion based on my observations over the past 25 years.

This conversation is a great example of it. Lots of old schoolers here who think that the conversation is silly and it's only about whether someone has paid their dues to get good enough to not care what CIT is, lots of people who don't even really understand what CIT is, and some who identified it correctly and have resources that are useful in dealing with it. Thus anyone coming across this thread who didn't know what it is can now learn what it is, how to deal with it, and thus be able to faster internalize what they need to know and as such they have gained one shortcut to a higher level of skill.

25 years ago, this conversation and resources would have been available to no one.

 

[JB Cases]

Are you talking about beginers being better than they were 20 years ago?

If you consider a beginner to be someone with say 6 months of playing time in then yes, I would bet that beginners today are better than beginners 25 years ago.

What about shortstops? Do they play better than the shortstops of 20 years ago iyo?

Yes, I think that they are better.

And do you really think the above has made an impact on the level the pros play at? The kicking has gotten better for sure but it is not because of systems. The pros knew all of the diamond systems back then. Aiming is the same for the pros, position is the same. Jumping has jump sticks now. The equipment has changed making somewhat of an impact and iron has sharpened ironmakkng the pros get better over time but the important knowledge is still the same. With the one exception being that of racking I guess.

Since I am not a pro I couldn't really say but if I had to guess I would say that yes, the overall level of professional players is better. I think that the best person to answer this would be Pat Fleming as he has the matches archived from the 90s and they can be compared to the matches today. I would however concede that the overall improvement is probably not that much.

I agree with Measureman as well, the growth of leagues alongside the increase in knowledge resources has also broadened the field of good players. I do think that those players are generally better. Here is another reason I think so. Players my age, in their 40s, are still able to learn from resources like Dr. Dave's although we have had plenty of table time and tournament experience. In other words we can continue to improve. So what does that say for players who have grown up surrounded by all this information? I think it says they have every opportunity to be better than I was at their age.