Deep Knowledge

MattPoland

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Is there any information on whether Mosconi ever cleaned the balls during his exhibition runs?



I have never heard or read anything about him doing it.


Whether Mosconi cleaned his balls or not certainly falls under the deep knowledge category.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Is there any information on whether Mosconi ever cleaned the balls during his exhibition runs?

I have never heard or read anything about him doing it.


I saw him at least four times and he never cleaned the balls mid-run nor pick up the CB to clean it.

Lou Figueroa
 

jay helfert

Shoot Pool, not people
Gold Member
Silver Member
Mosconi was a better Straight Pool player than anyone else, including Lassiter. It's doubtful that Lassiter in his prime (yes he played great in the 1950's) would want to play a long Challenge match against Willie with big money on the line. If Crane and Caras couldn't beat him, what chance would Lassiter have had? He would have been a big underdog. And I have a lot of respect for Luther. He was acknowledged as the best 9-Ball player of his era and he became one of (if not #1) the top 14.1 players after Willie retired. His chief competition coming from Joe Balsis, Irving Crane (who had not yet retired), Cicero Murphy and Harold Worst. Jimmy Caras came out of a near ten year retirement to win the U.S. Open Straight Pool title in 1967. He was 57 at the time.

It's true that Willie didn't care for gambling. He felt that as the most well known player of his era he should keep a squeaky clean image and he did just that throughout his career. But if he had been pushed to play a challenge match for big money, I don't doubt for a second that he would have accepted the bet. I don't think anyone was too anxious to put up any money to see if their horse could beat Willie, for good reason. Willie was all about the money and he truly believed that no one could beat him. He proved that to be true many times over the course of twenty plus years.

Most of these players, of any games, at best played three shots ahead of the current shot. To compete with Mosconi, they would have been playing with the man who shot a minimum of six or seven shots ahead at all times. If the break shot freely spread all balls open, then he would play all fourteen shots to the next break shot. Mosconi said no one could control where all of the balls on a break shot would roll to. But, people still wonder why he could move so quickly from shot to shot. It was because he was playing so far ahead of the current shot, that he infrequently had to reset the runout to the next break ball. He couldn’t control where all the balls were going on a break shot, but he knew what the balls weren’t going to do from his controlled break shots. He would still roll over today’s current 14.1 players.

You must have seen him play. He didn't waste any time once the balls got open. He played pretty much perfect, close position shot after shot until he finished the rack with a nice set up for the next break shot. He also knew more about breaking the balls than almost anyone then or now. He could break off the bottom of the rack or into the top of the rack if need be, and control the cue ball after hitting the pack.

I probably watched him play a couple of dozen exhibition matches and he would shake his head and show displeasure if he got out of line on a shot and had to shoot a different ball then intended. He may have done that once or twice in a normal 100+ ball run. He rarely shot a ball into the upper two pockets and only a few into either side. I would estimate that about 90% of the balls he made went into one of the two bottom corners. You probably could have blocked the top four pockets and he would still have run a 100 balls! :D
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Makes sense. Lots of attention has been paid to the break shot and maximizing the chances of getting a shot after - even I have Grady's "Break Shots and Key Balls", and I don't play straight pool.

Are any players (along with Grady, I suppose) recognized as "break mechanics" with exceptional success at getting a next shot?

pj
chgo

All I can say is that Sigel, Rempe and Fleming are all of the school that you should hit with follow on sharp angle breaks and hit with draw on shallow angle breaks. Keep it simple and don't over hit the shot. That seems to be enough for them, and I don't think they are just simplifying the shot for mere mortals. I think they figure you get a next shot most times when you break like that. On the other hand, maybe they do more than they say/realize when it is not an ideal break and only a few balls are expected to pop out. There are some obvious ball rolls that they certainly are aware of and would play to.

Tony Robles is the only one I've seen to talk at length on tracking balls for break shots.
 

grindz

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Tap tap tap...

I haven’t read through the whole thread, but have seen enough to acknowledge the
Value of it, so I don’t know if anyone has said this.

THANK YOU to all the knowledgeable, experienced, and historic minded players for what
You share on here, have shared, and continue to do so.

Tap tap tap....

Td
 

dr_dave

Instructional Author
Gold Member
Silver Member

ShootingArts

Smorg is giving St Peter the 7!
Gold Member
Silver Member
a freebee

Everyone should know this, I suspect a few don't. Credited to Reid or Rempe, I can't remember which at the moment. Best I recall it is called the double the distance shot but it really involves taking the distance from the center of the ball, or a bit further out since you want to hit the outside of the object ball, to the point of the cushion and simply aim at that distance outside the point of the cushion.

When in practice I am pretty comfortable with a two to two and a half ball gap from the rail to the ball just shooting feel. The method described here lets me take balls a couple more ball widths off of the rail from some positions.

I notice some pretty easy off the rail shots missed here and there. We shouldn't miss any three balls or less off the rail after practicing a bit with the double the distance method.

Thanks to the originator, whomever he might have been!

Hu
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Everyone should know this, I suspect a few don't. Credited to Reid or Rempe, I can't remember which at the moment. Best I recall it is called the double the distance shot but it really involves taking the distance from the center of the ball, or a bit further out since you want to hit the outside of the object ball, to the point of the cushion and simply aim at that distance outside the point of the cushion.

When in practice I am pretty comfortable with a two to two and a half ball gap from the rail to the ball just shooting feel. The method described here lets me take balls a couple more ball widths off of the rail from some positions.

I notice some pretty easy off the rail shots missed here and there. We shouldn't miss any three balls or less off the rail after practicing a bit with the double the distance method.

Thanks to the originator, whomever he might have been!

Hu

I'm sure this is clear to you, but honestly I am totally lost! Sounds like good advice but I don't know what you are trying to say.
 

measureman

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Well, Dan, you may be lost but you are not alone.:confused:

Sounds like the way you hit the rail first then the object ball to pocket it when its close to the rail.
If the object ball is is off the rail 2 inches you aim 4 inches up the rail from it to kick it in.
That's what i remember as double the distance when the object ball is fairly close to the rail.
 
Last edited:

ShootingArts

Smorg is giving St Peter the 7!
Gold Member
Silver Member
mirrpr image

Call this the mirror image shot then, that is how I think of it. I don't have a way to put up diagrams so I'll try words once more. For simplicity lets say a ball lays one ball width off of the cushion one diamond from the corner pocket. Balls in the way or personal preference, you want to shoot the shot rail first.

If you put a ball on the rail where it would mirror the position of the ball you are shooting at considering the point of the cushion as the axis you are rotating around or the line you are flipping over, aiming dead center at the ball on the rail and you will generally hit the object ball on the table dead center. Some adjustment required since you actually want to hit a little on the outside of the ball to pocket it.

Most of us have the rail first shots in our memory banks until we get a couple balls distance off the rail. This may be what is confusing some, I am using the handy ball diameter as a unit of measure. We are usually pretty solid until we get three to four inches off the rail. My mental computer runs out of steam if the ball is much further off the rail than that. However. If I use this mirror image technique I have a new baseline. I can make corrections off of that and take a pretty well aimed swing.

Clearer or am I losing ground? :grin:

Hu
 

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
Everyone should know this, I suspect a few don't. Credited to Reid or Rempe, I can't remember which at the moment. Best I recall it is called the double the distance shot but it really involves taking the distance from the center of the ball, or a bit further out since you want to hit the outside of the object ball, to the point of the cushion and simply aim at that distance outside the point of the cushion.

When in practice I am pretty comfortable with a two to two and a half ball gap from the rail to the ball just shooting feel. The method described here lets me take balls a couple more ball widths off of the rail from some positions.

I notice some pretty easy off the rail shots missed here and there. We shouldn't miss any three balls or less off the rail after practicing a bit with the double the distance method.

Thanks to the originator, whomever he might have been!

Hu
I'm sure this is clear to you, but honestly I am totally lost! Sounds like good advice but I don't know what you are trying to say.
Well, Dan, you may be lost but you are not alone.:confused:
Sounds like the way you hit the rail first then the object ball to pocket it when its close to the rail.
If the object ball is is off the rail 2 inches you aim 4 inches up the rail from it to kick it in.
I think Hu's referring to the "mirror image" kicking method, where you imagine (or measure) the OB (and/or ghost CB) reflected in a mirror located at the cushion nose.

pj
chgo
 

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
I think Hu's referring to the "mirror image" kicking method, where you imagine (or measure) the OB (and/or ghost CB) reflected in a mirror located at the cushion nose. ..
Yes, that's what his later response indicates. There is additional, deeper knowledge:

If the object ball is close to the cushion, you need to reflect through the rail groove to find your target, as is the case if you play with draw or stun.

If you want to get a thin hit on a ball that is frozen to the cushion going cushion first (from along that same cushion), say for a good hit with safety, just aim for a thin hit on the wrong side of the ball (cushion side) ignoring the cushion. You need to pay attention to and adjust for spin on the cue ball.

On kick shots nearly parallel to the cushion, the cue ball comes off the cushion at only 70% of the slope going in if the cue ball is rolling. This is true even if the cue ball has reverse (cushion side) side spin.
 

measureman

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Yes, that's what his later response indicates. There is additional, deeper knowledge:

If the object ball is close to the cushion, you need to reflect through the rail groove to find your target, as is the case if you play with draw or stun.

If you want to get a thin hit on a ball that is frozen to the cushion going cushion first (from along that same cushion), say for a good hit with safety, just aim for a thin hit on the wrong side of the ball (cushion side) ignoring the cushion. You need to pay attention to and adjust for spin on the cue ball.

On kick shots nearly parallel to the cushion, the cue ball comes off the cushion at only 70% of the slope going in if the cue ball is rolling. This is true even if the cue ball has reverse (cushion side) side spin.

If this was hit with following English I would think that the 70% would be closer to 100%?
 
Last edited:

dr_dave

Instructional Author
Gold Member
Silver Member
Everyone should know this, I suspect a few don't. Credited to Reid or Rempe, I can't remember which at the moment. Best I recall it is called the double the distance shot but it really involves taking the distance from the center of the ball, or a bit further out since you want to hit the outside of the object ball, to the point of the cushion and simply aim at that distance outside the point of the cushion.

When in practice I am pretty comfortable with a two to two and a half ball gap from the rail to the ball just shooting feel. The method described here lets me take balls a couple more ball widths off of the rail from some positions.

I notice some pretty easy off the rail shots missed here and there. We shouldn't miss any three balls or less off the rail after practicing a bit with the double the distance method.

Thanks to the originator, whomever he might have been!

Hu

I'm sure this is clear to you, but honestly I am totally lost! Sounds like good advice but I don't know what you are trying to say.
I think he was describing a simplified version of the system described and demonstrated here:

shallow-angle contact-point-mirror-image kick-shot aiming system

Regards,
Dave
 

straightline

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
If this was hit with following English I would think that the 70% would be closer to 50%?

I think this would play out in an infinitely long shot - like 20 or 30 feet :) where perfect rolling and cushion deflection average out. I think railside english will cause the most pronounced flattening of the angle by "glitching" the shot at the cushion; allowing any forward roll to have greater effect.
 

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Earlier we saw the side pocket corner hook from Pat Fleming's instructional video. Here is the shot in play in a tournament in 1987:

https://youtu.be/Xo0RYMP8F7k?t=175

Go to 2:55 if the link doesn't take you there automatically.

It's interesting that the commentators knew exactly what Alex was going to play.
 

bb9ball

Registered
Earlier we saw the side pocket corner hook from Pat Fleming's instructional video. Here is the shot in play in a tournament in 1987:

https://youtu.be/Xo0RYMP8F7k?t=175

Go to 2:55 if the link doesn't take you there automatically.

It's interesting that the commentators knew exactly what Alex was going to play.

Nice find, Bob.

Maybe, it is more common in snooker with a little more shelf area to help hide the cue ball and the rounded rail doesn't automatically lead to the pocket.
 
Top