Good Enough

[Ballistic Billiards]

I know!

Every time this happens to me, it's because I'm using the wrong cue ball.
(or the table rolls funny, or the rails are f'd up, or the cloth isn't
stretched tight enough, or it's too humid)

I think a major problem why it can be so hard to advance at this game, is that it is very easy to accept "good enough."

How many times have you hit a shot a little off and it still goes and you go on your merry way without further introspection? Or how about the situation where you don't get exactly the position you want -- but still have "good enough" position for the next shot. We just don't stop and take the time to analyze why what we wanted to happen, didn't happen. We fall into the trap of just accepting that the cue ball went a little right or left, or maybe back a bit, when what you wanted was to kill it cold.

We accept good enough rather than to take note and tackle the cause. I mean, nobody's perfect, right?

But let's face it: there's a reason the object ball goes off to the right or the left (and still goes), when you wanted it to track perfectly straight. And there's a reason that the cue ball comes back to the right or the left, when you wanted it to track straight back. But we settle for good enough and go on without pausing to reflect and dissect the nuances.

But at this game, it's the nuances that kill you. And those slight deviations in the object ball or cue ball path are what eventually come back to haunt us by manifesting themselves on the bigger shots. Sooner or later, without realizing it, those small "acceptable" flaws come back to bite us, in a big, unacceptable kinda way.

Lou Figueroa

 

[JStarkweather]

Nice post Lou,
That is one of the biggest things I have focused on in the past year; which is to put consistent focus & thought on each shot. I guess because I'm still young, I always have refuted "good enough". Every player should strive for the correct hit, but it takes a combination of methodical grip, stroke, sight, stance & mental focus. You really can't limit it to one particular thing, from what I've seen with my game.

 

[Andrew Manning]

I see it as a three-pronged problem, consisting of players a) being too satsified with their execution, b) being too satsified with their conceptualization, and c) being too satisfied with their mental game.

...

I think it's in the area of shot conceptualization where strong players not only get too satisfied but also are delusional about how much better their shot conceptualization could be. Shockingly few strong players believe that they can make big strides in their game by making better choices at the table, and many of those that do simply can't be bothered. The only way to master shot conceptualization is to study the pro game, and study it more, and study it more, and study it more .....

sjm, would you clarify what you mean when you use the term "shot conceptualization"? I can tell from context what you're getting at, but since you seem to hold the opinion that this may be the most important key to becoming a great player, and since I know your opinion on this subject is very highly esteemed by pocket billiards cognoscenti, I'd like to hear exactly what you mean by that term.

-Andrew

 

[sjm]

sjm, would you clarify what you mean when you use the term "shot conceptualization"? I can tell from context what you're getting at, but since you seem to hold the opinion that this may be the most important key to becoming a great player, and since I know your opinion on this subject is very highly esteemed by pocket billiards cognoscenti, I'd like to hear exactly what you mean by that term.

-Andrew

Shot conceptualization is, simply, selection of aim, stroke, speed and english for any given shot. In broader terms, it can be viewed as shot design. Those with superior conceptualization skills are the ones that make these choices with exceptional insight and judgment. Conceptualization skills are a function of knowledge and a keen sense of the percentages.

Shot execution is the carrying out of the shot as conceptualized. The ability to aim, make an accurate stroke, and to produce the intended cue ball speed are the key ingredients in shot execution.

When a shot fails to produce a good result, it may be attributable to bad conceptualization, bad execution, or possibly even both.

 

[Andrew Manning]

Shot conceptualization is, simply, selection of aim, stroke, speed and english for any given shot. In broader terms, it can be viewed as shot design. Those with superior conceptualization skills are the ones that make these choices with exceptional insight and judgment. Conceptualization skills are a function of knowledge and a keen sense of the percentages.

Shot execution is the carrying out of the shot as conceptualized. The ability to aim, make an accurate stroke, and to produce the intended cue ball speed are the key ingredients in shot execution.

When a shot fails to produce a good result, it may be attributable to bad conceptualization, bad execution, or possibly even both.

Thanks for the reply. Often I hit a shot and the CB doesn't go where it's supposed to, and I say to myself (sometimes even out loud) "It was supposed to [react differently]", and point with my cue to where I thought the CB was going to go. I think those are the times when my conceptualization is to blame, as opposed to other times when I fail to aim or just hit the ball badly.

Besides a lot of table-time, how do you recommend honing one's conceptualization?

-Andrew

 

[the420trooper]

Lou...The number one reason for the errors you pointed out, is not striking the CB accurately. Stroke flaws account for the majority of errors in pool.

Scott Lee

Then why do pros miss?:grin:

I think it has more to do with laziness and concentration lapses.

Building a good stroke is important, but achievable. The ability to approach each shot with the same level of focus, is significantly harder, imo.

 

[lfigueroa]

Every time this happens to me, it's because I'm using the wrong cue ball.
(or the table rolls funny, or the rails are f'd up, or the cloth isn't
stretched tight enough, or it's too humid)

lol.

BB, I always list those under "contributing factors"

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

Nice post Lou,
That is one of the biggest things I have focused on in the past year; which is to put consistent focus & thought on each shot. I guess because I'm still young, I always have refuted "good enough". Every player should strive for the correct hit, but it takes a combination of methodical grip, stroke, sight, stance & mental focus. You really can't limit it to one particular thing, from what I've seen with my game.

Thanks, Startweather. I played pool for a long time looking for "The Secret." I knew that if I could just discover The Secret I would play great pool. For the longest time, I thought The Secret might be a certain grip, a certain bridge, a particular approach to the table, maybe just the right head height or position over the cue. But The Secret always eluded me.

Now I've come to understand that The Secret, as a single entity, doesn't really exist. Instead I've learned that success at pool is contingent on at least general three principles.

Lou's First Principle of Pool
Playing great pool is the result of reliably reproducing the same mechanical setup every time you approach the table. In turn, the same mechanics will produce the same stroke each time you shoot. You can't learn to play great pool if your mechanics are different each time you setup. It's not a certain grip or head height, it's a process that starts with how you hold your pool cue and ends with your final shooting position. The problem with concentrating on and changing one particular element in the process is that, if you're not paying attention, you can easily alter something else, and change your results. Or, if you're not setting up in a consistent manner, there's no way to directly attribute any improvement to a particular modification, like a higher or lower head position. We've all had those sessions when, for a brief moment in time, we thought to ourselves "I'm ready for the tour." Balls go in from everywhere and we effortlessly move the cue ball around the table with astounding position. It's because, I believe, we all have a great stroke inside us. But, we don't do things the same every day, or even from shot to shot. The Secret, such as it applies to a great stroke, is to find the process that creates those great results and repeat them consistently.

Lou's Second Principle of Pool
Great pool is a result of setting up and executing your stroke with great precision. Perhaps many of you have seen the poster "View of a Cue" which is basically a foot and a half cue ball overlaid with graph lines that breaks the cue ball down into something like a 120 spots. The Secret is not about hitting the cue ball low or high or to the side -- it's about consciously choosing one of those 120 spots and shooting at it with the right speed and elevation to produce exactly the results you want.

Lou's Third Principle of pool
Great pool players have great memories. Each and every shot, you've got to guess what's going to happen with the object ball and cue ball. Then, you must pay attention and see if your results matched your hypothesis. And, if they didn't, how they differed.

The Secret is to then remember for the next time

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

sjm, would you clarify what you mean when you use the term "shot conceptualization"? I can tell from context what you're getting at, but since you seem to hold the opinion that this may be the most important key to becoming a great player, and since I know your opinion on this subject is very highly esteemed by pocket billiards cognoscenti, I'd like to hear exactly what you mean by that term.

-Andrew

Not sjm, but I think when it comes to shot conceptualization, many players think they know what's going to happen on a given shot, when they really don't. After all, this is a game of hypothesis. You look at the shot and hypothesize that if you hit the ball at a certain point, with a certain spin, with a certain speed, one ball will go in the pocket and the other will land on a given spot on the table for another shot. You get down and shoot and test your hypothesis. If a player thinks they do know exactly what's going to happen on any given shot, they should immediately waltz over to the billiard table, or just throw a couple of balls on a pool table, and try a little straight rail Many players may be shocked to discover what they don't know.

I think any player can make the cue travel on a perfectly straight track several different ways. Put another way, you can produce a perfectly straight stroke using a wide variety of stroke mechanics -- different stances, bridges, grips, head heights, crooked or bent bridge arms, grip arm alignments, etc. But it has to be a straight (or even crooked stroke for that matter) that produces the desired/expected results for your hypothesis. I think that's part of the secret.

Sooo, I guess you have to find the setup that makes the balls do what you expect them to do and then be able to reliably reproduce that setup on every shot. Returning for a moment to the issue of "good enough," if you expect the ball to come straight backwards on a draw shot, and it goes sideways, you have no basis upon which to learn. If you want and expect the cue ball to track perfectly straight on a follow shot and it goes sideways on you, the same problem exists. So your starting point has to be here.

Once you've got that, I think you eventually get to the point of "feeling" the shots by paying attention, using each shot to learn. IOW, using each shot as an experiment for which you first hypothesize about the expected results. You shoot the shot and then compare your results to your hypothesis. Then, the next time the same shot comes up, you develop a new hypothesis based upon your previous experiment. Something like: the last time I shot this shot the cue ball didn't take as wide an angle off the rail as I anticipated. So I'll cheat the pocket; use more english: use more speed; hit lower on the cue ball; whatever, and try and get that wider angle.

Then, several thousands and thousands of shots later, viola! (With apologies to Smorg.) You don't even have to think about making the ball

Lou Figueroa

 

[sjm]

Besides a lot of table-time, how do you recommend honing one's conceptualization?

-Andrew

Study the choices top players make. When you do, think about the following:

1) When do they choose offense, when do they choose defense, when do they choose two way shots? Nobody has ever made the choices better than Efren Reyes and Nick Varner. Get some video of them if you can.

2) When playing offense, what patterns do they play and why? Ralf Souquet and Buddy Hall are probably the gold standard for studying this part of the game, so if you can get video of them, it will help. As you watch an Accu-stats video, see if you can predict the pattern and, on every shot, make a prediction as to what stroke and cue ball path are coming. I used to have one of my students do this while we studied Jose Parica's play.

3) When playing defense, what safety do they choose, and when is it cue-ball oriented, object ball oriented, or largely dependent on both. How do top players manage their downside when playing defense. How does early-rack defense differ form late rack defense? Karen Corr is, without question, one of the best defensive players I've ever seen, and as she's often on TV, you should have the opportunity to watch her play.

4) When they have a choice between a kick, a jump or a masse, what choice do they make in given situations and why? When they kick, what kick do they choose? In what kicking situaitons do they use english? Watch the pros make these choices and you'll learn a lot.

Study the game --- that's the ticket. It will broaden your horizons with respect to shot conceptualization and design, and will give you some insights into how the available choices are assessed by pool's greatest players.

 

[sjm]

Not sjm, but I think when it comes to shot conceptualization, many players think they know what's going to happen on a given shot, when they really don't. After all, this is a game of hypothesis. You look at the shot and hypothesize that if you hit the ball at a certain point, with a certain spin, with a certain speed, one ball will go in the pocket and the other will land on a given spot on the table for another shot. You get down and shoot and test your hypothesis. If a player thinks they do know exactly what's going to happen on any given shot, they should immediately waltz over to the billiard table, or just throw a couple of balls on a pool table, and try a little straight rail Many players may be shocked to discover what they don't know.

I think any player can make the cue travel on a perfectly straight track several different ways. Put another way, you can produce a perfectly straight stroke using a wide variety of stroke mechanics -- different stances, bridges, grips, head heights, crooked or bent bridge arms, grip arm alignments, etc. But it has to be a straight (or even crooked stroke for that matter) that produces the desired/expected results for your hypothesis. I think that's part of the secret.

Sooo, I guess you have to find the setup that makes the balls do what you expect them to do and then be able to reliably reproduce that setup on every shot. Returning for a moment to the issue of "good enough," if you expect the ball to come straight backwards on a draw shot, and it goes sideways, you have no basis upon which to learn. If you want and expect the cue ball to track perfectly straight on a follow shot and it goes sideways on you, the same problem exists. So your starting point has to be here.

Once you've got that, I think you eventually get to the point of "feeling" the shots by paying attention, using each shot to learn. IOW, using each shot as an experiment for which you first hypothesize about the expected results. You shoot the shot and then compare your results to your hypothesis. Then, the next time the same shot come up, you develop a new hypothesis based upon your previous experiment. Something like: the last time I shot this shot the cue ball didn't take as wide an angle off the rail as I anticipated. So I'll cheat the pocket; use more english: use more speed; hit lower on the cue ball; whatever, and try and get that wider angle.

Then, several thousands and thousands of shots later, viola! (With apologies to Smorg.) You don't even have to think about making the ball

Lou Figueroa

A wonderful post, Lou. Well said!

 

[Cameron Smith]

Thanks for the reply. Often I hit a shot and the CB doesn't go where it's supposed to, and I say to myself (sometimes even out loud) "It was supposed to [react differently]", and point with my cue to where I thought the CB was going to go. I think those are the times when my conceptualization is to blame, as opposed to other times when I fail to aim or just hit the ball badly.

Besides a lot of table-time, how do you recommend honing one's conceptualization?

-Andrew

This is part of the learning process. It takes a while before we know exactly, or even close to exactly, what is going to happen.

I remember deciding on a positional route and then the cue ball wouldn't go anywhere near where I intended. BUT I still achieved perfect position. I made a point of remembering these and trying to do them intentionally next time, assuming the route is sensible.

 

[lfigueroa]

Study the choices top players make. When you do, think about the following:

1) When do they choose offense, when do they choose defense, when do they choose two way shots? Nobody has ever made the choices better than Efren Reyes and Nick Varner. Get some video of them if you can.

2) When playing offense, what patterns do they play and why? Ralf Souquet and Buddy Hall are probably the gold standard for studying this part of the game, so if you can get video of them, it will help. As you watch an Accu-stats video, see if you can predict the pattern and, on every shot, make a prediction as to what stroke and cue ball path are coming. I used to have one of my students do this while we studied Jose Parica's play.

3) When playing defense, what safety do they choose, and when is it cue-ball oriented, object ball oriented, or largely dependent on both. How do top players manage their downside when playing defense. How does early-rack defense differ form late rack defense? Karen Corr is, without question, one of the best defensive players I've ever seen, and as she's often on TV, you should have the opportunity to watch her play.

4) When they have a choice between a kick, a jump or a masse, what choice do they make in given situations and why? When they kick, what kick do they choose? In what kicking situaitons do they use english? Watch the pros make these choices and you'll learn a lot.

Study the game --- that's the ticket. It will broaden your horizons with respect to shot conceptualization and design, and will give you some insights into how the available choices are assessed by pool's greatest players.

Oh yeah. Watch the gooder players every chance you get, in person and/or Accu-Stats. They are performing "The Magic Trick" over and over again, right before your very own little peepers.

If you watch closely and pay attention, you can figure it out, instead of being just another rube walking down the midway

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

A wonderful post, Lou. Well said!

Gracias, sjm.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

This is part of the learning process. It takes a while before we know exactly, or even close to exactly, what is going to happen.

I remember deciding on a positional route and then the cue ball wouldn't go anywhere near where I intended. BUT I still achieved perfect position. I made a point of remembering these and trying to do them intentionally next time, assuming the route is sensible.

I think you've hit on something important, Cameron: Memory.

I believe being a good pool player is a lot like being a good card player. It takes a good memory. As I've said early up in the thread, you have to remember what happens when the shot looks "on" to you -- to compare your "hypothesis" about a given shot with the actual results. You've got to be paying attention, every time you shoot, both before and after. Did you over cut the ball? Under cut it? Did the cue ball draw more or less than you anticipated? Was the cue ball's angle off the cushion wider or narrower than you predicted.

The next time the shot comes up, you recall the previous outcome, adjust accordingly, and observe the results vs your new theory. Then, it just becomes a matter of increased refinement. Doing this in a practice session speeds up the learning cycle because you don't have to wait for any given shot to come up again (after all, some shots may only come up once a session, or even once a week).

I believe memory also affects how we view our improvement, or lack of it. Unless you're keeping records (a good idea, but frankly, how many of us are that anal?) it's difficult to accurately remember how well you played a week, month, or year ago. And, as you progress, it becomes harder and harder to objectively appreciate any progress you might have made because of your own continually rising expectations. There was a point at which I felt I was playing well when I got my banks close. Now, it's more like I'm having a bad day if they all don't go (OK, almost all of them). I've forgotten my old expectations.

Your perception about how well you're playing can also be impacted by who you're playing and selective memory. If you're playing a runout player, a scratch in the side, he puts a four-pack on you, and you're likely to feel that you played poorly berating yourself about the scratch in the side, long after the match is over. If you're playing a weaker player and win 9-2, you probably won't even remember that same scratch in the side and might even feel you played exceptionally well.

Lastly, on this subject, I don't believe I've ever met a pool player who didn't "use to play better." I think that that's more a case of colored memory, fondly recalling being in dead stroke sometime, long ago, and somehow believing it was a constant state of affairs.

I wish...

Lou Figueroa

 

[Cameron Smith]

I think you've hit on something important, Cameron: Memory.

I believe being a good pool player is a lot like being a good card player. It takes a good memory. As I've said early up in the thread, you have to remember what happens when the shot looks "on" to you -- to compare your "hypothesis" about a given shot with the actual results. You've got to be paying attention, every time you shoot, both before and after. Did you over cut the ball? Under cut it? Did the cue ball draw more or less than you anticipated? Was the cue ball's angle off the cushion wider or narrower than you predicted.

The next time the shot comes up, you recall the previous outcome, adjust accordingly, and observe the results vs your new theory. Then, it just becomes a matter of increased refinement. Doing this in a practice session speeds up the learning cycle because you don't have to wait for any given shot to come up again (after all, some shots may only come up once a session, or even once a week).

I believe memory also affects how we view our improvement, or lack of it. Unless you're keeping records (a good idea, but frankly, how many of us are that anal?) it's difficult to accurately remember how well you played a week, month, or year ago. And, as you progress, it becomes harder and harder to objectively appreciate any progress you might have made because of your own continually rising expectations. There was a point at which I felt I was playing well when I got my banks close. Now, it's more like I'm having a bad day if they all don't go (OK, almost all of them). I've forgotten my old expectations.

Your perception about how well you're playing can also be impacted by who you're playing and selective memory. If you're playing a runout player, a scratch in the side, he puts a four-pack on you, and you're likely to feel that you played poorly berating yourself about the scratch in the side, long after the match is over. If you're playing a weaker player and win 9-2, you probably won't even remember that same scratch in the side and might even feel you played exceptionally well.

Lastly, on this subject, I don't believe I've ever met a pool player who didn't "use to play better." I think that that's more a case of colored memory, fondly recalling being in dead stroke sometime, long ago, and somehow believing it was a constant state of affairs.

I wish...

Lou Figueroa

I agree entirely. It would be very difficult to play a good game if you apporached every scenario as though it were the first time you've seen it, ie. finding the point of aim for every shot, calculating the 90 degree rule for position play etc. Players need to develop a catalogue of shots which can be instantly applied to a variety of scenarios in the same way that chess players have catalogue of strategies and openings.

Similarily, when I was teaching guitar, specifically lead guitar, I had students that when learning a new solo would learn each note individually and then try to put them together (sorry it's tough to properly explain). The trick however, is that there are a lot of re-occuring sequences of notes in solos, or runs as we call them, that are reused in many different pieces. It is very rare to find a solo that is completely unique. I would tell my students to recognize these sequences, which they may have already learned from other pieces, and then put them together.

My point is that players need to learn to trust themselves, try not to overanalyze and simply execute what they should already know how to do.

As far as perception is concerned, I think this is probably a huge cause of slumps. I can't remember how many times someone has told me they played the best pool of their lives, and then soon after I hear they are in a tremendous slump. I think what often happens is that the go back the next day and play their average game, and feel that they are playing badly. When they can't live up to their expectations they start to lose confidence. The root of the problem is likely that when a player has one of their best nights ever, they feel it is a break through.

 

[sjm]

I agree entirely. It would be very difficult to play a good game if you apporached every scenario as though it were the first time you've seen it, ie. finding the point of aim for every shot, calculating the 90 degree rule for position play etc. Players need to develop a catalogue of shots which can be instantly applied to a variety of scenarios in the same way that chess players have catalogue of strategies and openings.

Great point, Cameron. Conceptualization becomes more and more instinctive, and some of it almost automatic, as our knowledge and experience as players grows.

Snooker offers a great example. A snooker rack always finishes with the same pattern when the colors are on their designated spots. The top snooker player doesn't have to design a pattern every time they approach the last six balls of the rack, they have been there and done that so times that they just know what the pattern is. If they don't run out the colors at the end of a rack of snooker, there mistake is virtually always in execution, not in conceptualization.

 

[JB Cases]

I think a major problem why it can be so hard to advance at this game, is that it is very easy to accept "good enough."

How many times have you hit a shot a little off and it still goes and you go on your merry way without further introspection? Or how about the situation where you don't get exactly the position you want -- but still have "good enough" position for the next shot. We just don't stop and take the time to analyze why what we wanted to happen, didn't happen. We fall into the trap of just accepting that the cue ball went a little right or left, or maybe back a bit, when what you wanted was to kill it cold.

We accept good enough rather than to take note and tackle the cause. I mean, nobody's perfect, right?

But let's face it: there's a reason the object ball goes off to the right or the left (and still goes), when you wanted it to track perfectly straight. And there's a reason that the cue ball comes back to the right or the left, when you wanted it to track straight back. But we settle for good enough and go on without pausing to reflect and dissect the nuances.

But at this game, it's the nuances that kill you. And those slight deviations in the object ball or cue ball path are what eventually come back to haunt us by manifesting themselves on the bigger shots. Sooner or later, without realizing it, those small "acceptable" flaws come back to bite us, in a big, unacceptable kinda way.

Lou Figueroa

Something like "the amateur practices until they get it right and the professional practices until they can't get it wrong" - author unknown

 

[pooltchr]

8ballEinstein, I completely agree. Sometimes you have to live within the time you can allot the game. But beyond laziness, I'm thinking that as a general mindset, even with limited time to devote to the game, you can still approach it with the thought of improving your execution, maybe just one shot at a time.

Lou Figueroa

Lou, You have made several posts on this thread that are so true it isn't even funny. (I LOVE your first rule of pool!) But along the line of the OP, this is the one that stands out to me. Good enough is a very dangerous thought. I play "good enough" to win a local tournament from time to time, but I am always aware when my performance isn't perfect. And while I know perfection is an unrealistic goal, continually working toward perfection is very realistic. I had the opportunity to warm up for a tournament recently for about an hour with Nick Varner. It was a very harsh reminder that I still have much room for improvement.

I hope I never reach the point where my game is "good enough". Continuous improvement should be our constant goal. As they say, when you stop learning, you stop living.

The foundation to improvement is exactly as you stated it. As several of my instructor peers often say, our first goal in teaching pool is to help our students establish a consistent and repeatable stroke that will always deliver the cue stick forward in a straight line. Sounds pretty simple, but in practice, it can be quite elusive.

Thank you for your contributions to this thread. You are "spot on"!

Steve

 

[lfigueroa]

I agree entirely. It would be very difficult to play a good game if you apporached every scenario as though it were the first time you've seen it, ie. finding the point of aim for every shot, calculating the 90 degree rule for position play etc. Players need to develop a catalogue of shots which can be instantly applied to a variety of scenarios in the same way that chess players have catalogue of strategies and openings.

Similarily, when I was teaching guitar, specifically lead guitar, I had students that when learning a new solo would learn each note individually and then try to put them together (sorry it's tough to properly explain). The trick however, is that there are a lot of re-occuring sequences of notes in solos, or runs as we call them, that are reused in many different pieces. It is very rare to find a solo that is completely unique. I would tell my students to recognize these sequences, which they may have already learned from other pieces, and then put them together.

My point is that players need to learn to trust themselves, try not to overanalyze and simply execute what they should already know how to do.

As far as perception is concerned, I think this is probably a huge cause of slumps. I can't remember how many times someone has told me they played the best pool of their lives, and then soon after I hear they are in a tremendous slump. I think what often happens is that the go back the next day and play their average game, and feel that they are playing badly. When they can't live up to their expectations they start to lose confidence. The root of the problem is likely that when a player has one of their best nights ever, they feel it is a break through.

The catalogue is a good way to put it. I find that sometimes I instantly recognize a shot and get down to shoot and am pulling the trigger, while a voice in the back of my mind is saying, "Hey! Wait a minute -- don't you want to discuss this?!" I think that's one of the reasons pros make it look so easy. They have really big catalogues. And just as your chess player, they've already thought out the move so many times, in so many situations, they can just "go."

And I really like what you said about guitar runs. What struck me about that is the similarity to 14.1 runs. When you're really hitting on all cylinders, you basically end up repeating the same patterns over and over, particularly during the end sequences. You've done them often enough that you've learned the best way to get home and do it almost automatically.

Lou Figueroa