Great mechanics but horrible shot making, can it happen?

[Maniac]

Actually I posted above that as long as the equipment is in order AND the stroke is true then only way to miss is alignment.

A ball that is spit out of a pocket, as in it went INTO the pocket and came back out is counted as a miss per the rules but is not really a miss. When I play I will almost always give such shots back to the shooter because I don't count them as a miss. The only time I don't give them back is if the ball comes out and disturbs the layout.

We are talking about situations where it's user error though and not equipment issues such as the balls rolls over a piece of chalk.

Once again John.....not trying to argue with you nor "stir the pot"....but, the two balls that came out of that pocket on that Youtube video were not missed because the equipment was not "in order". This was a major tournament, and I am sure the equipment was top-notch (probably the ONLY two balls that got spit out of that pocket the whole tournament). The two balls were "missed"... whether by rule OR by the fact that when they stopped rolling, they were STILL ON THE TABLE. It was SPIN that caused both of these balls to come back onto the playing surface....not faulty equipment. You can clearly see it in slow-motion (I wish I could have found the link to this video).

But, also once again.....I knew what you and Scott were talking about when y'all posted. :thumbup:

Now....back to our regularly scheduled program!!!!

Maniac

 

[JB Cases]

Once again John.....not trying to argue with you nor "stir the pot"....but, the two balls that came out of that pocket on that Youtube video were not missed because the equipment was not "in order". This was a major tournament, and I am sure the equipment was top-notch (probably the ONLY two balls that got spit out of that pocket the whole tournament). The two balls were "missed"... whether by rule OR by the fact that when they stopped rolling, they were STILL ON THE TABLE. It was SPIN that caused both of these balls to come back onto the playing surface....not faulty equipment. You can clearly see it in slow-motion (I wish I could have found the link to this video).

But, also once again.....I knew what you and Scott were talking about when y'all posted. :thumbup:

Now....back to our regularly scheduled program!!!!

Maniac

I got you. You're right, a ball can be missed if the spin grabs the rail in such a way as to direct the ball away from the pocket instead of into it. For the purpose of the discussion though it should be assumed that this type of miss or a skid is not what is being talked about.

In discussion is why a player with sound fundamentals would miss easy shots consistently.

 

[sfleinen]

You're both wrong....there are three ways (and probably more if I wanted to spend more time investigating it).

You can also miss a shot due to the pocket simply not accepting the ball. I looked for but couldn't locate a Youtube video where Efren Reyes was playing someone and he shot a ball into a pocket and the ball came right back out onto the table. Then, his opponent attempted to pocket the same ball into the same pocket with the very same result. Both shots went cleanly into the pocket, but.............

I hope somebody finds that link and posts it.

Maniac

Maniac:

If you're talking about this video (as one of the two -- can't find the other one at the moment), I disagree with the posters that said this was a pure "miss." Maybe by strict BCA / WPA rules convention, possibly, but the pocket wasn't missed at all.

Rather, it was determined that the "pocket-cam" had come loose -- intruding into the pocket itself -- and the object ball was bouncing directly backwards from it.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=bqmPIqMC6CI

The other video you mention -- where an 8-ball "swirls into and then back out of" the pocket onto the table, was due to the incredible spin on the ball, where it climbed the sides of the pocket bucket and back out onto the table. Even there, I'd gander that this is still an equipment problem, where the smooth / slick interior of the pocket bucket was probably compromised, to the point where a spinning object ball would "grab" onto it (which is not supposed to happen).

Thoughts?
-Sean

 

[sfleinen]

[...]
In discussion is why a player with sound fundamentals would miss easy shots consistently.

Which by all proper training standards, is an extremely rare occurrence. Unfortunately -- and I'm going to catch hell for saying this on a pool forum -- pool players not trained in proper fundamentals wouldn't know proper fundamentals if they fell upon him/her.

So when I hear the generic "grew up playing pool in a bar" types (e.g. leaguers) talking about how they witnessed a pool player "with good-looking / sound fundamentals" consistently missing shots, I find that immediately suspect. To me: 1.) that pool player wouldn't know what proper fundamentals would even look like; and 2.) it smacks of a setup for an aiming system advertisement.

Not to get into an aiming system discussion, but proper fundamentals LEND themselves to proper alignment. If you have a proper PSR and proper alignment (as part of the whole fundamentals discussion), it's virtually impossible to continually find yourself on the wrong line. That's what proper fundamentals is all about in the first place: to place you on the line for the shot, and have your body alignment such that you can deliver the cue straight down that line as possible.

Aiming systems only help to pinpoint that aim, not to fix your fundamentals.

P.S.: I know, I know; CTE/Pro-1 advocates will jump in with corrections saying that an indirect benefit of learning CTE/Pro-1 is that one's way of aligning and getting down on the shot is improved. While that may be true (and I believe it), this is roughly analogous to making the house fit the door, instead of vice-versa.

-Sean

 

[JB Cases]

Which by all proper training standards, is an extremely rare occurrence. Unfortunately -- and I'm going to catch hell for saying this on a pool forum -- pool players not trained in proper fundamentals wouldn't know proper fundamentals if they fell upon him/her.

So when I hear the generic "grew up playing pool in a bar" types (e.g. leaguers) talking about how they witnessed a pool player "with good-looking / sound fundamentals" consistently missing shots, I find that immediately suspect. To me: 1.) that pool player wouldn't know what proper fundamentals would even look like; and 2.) it smacks of a setup for an aiming system advertisement.

Not to get into an aiming system discussion, but proper fundamentals LEND themselves to proper alignment. If you have a proper PSR and proper alignment (as part of the whole fundamentals discussion), it's virtually impossible to continually find yourself on the wrong line. That's what proper fundamentals is all about in the first place: to place you on the line for the shot, and have your body alignment such that you can deliver the cue straight down that line as possible.

Aiming systems only help to pinpoint that aim, not to fix your fundamentals.

P.S.: I know, I know; CTE/Pro-1 advocates will jump in with corrections saying that an indirect benefit of learning CTE/Pro-1 is that one's way of aligning and getting down on the shot is improved. While that may be true (and I believe it), this is roughly analogous to making the house fit the door, instead of vice-versa.

-Sean

We will have to agree to disagree. I firmly believe a person can be trained to have a textbook perfect stroke and still end up with the cue pointed in the wrong direction.

A blind person can be trained to stroke perfectly. I am positive I could splice together a video showing a blind person addressing and shooting many perfect shots. I could make it so that no one watching would know that person can't see. Every viewer would be awed by the perfect fundamentals.

That person however could never see the shot line. If they ever found one then it would be pure luck.

That is obviously a radical extreme. But the fact is that vision and perception exist on a spectrum with each person's being slightly to radically different.

So with all respect I will stick with my point that perfect mechanics do not include perfect perception.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

 

[hang-the-9]

Which by all proper training standards, is an extremely rare occurrence. Unfortunately -- and I'm going to catch hell for saying this on a pool forum -- pool players not trained in proper fundamentals wouldn't know proper fundamentals if they fell upon him/her.

So when I hear the generic "grew up playing pool in a bar" types (e.g. leaguers) talking about how they witnessed a pool player "with good-looking / sound fundamentals" consistently missing shots, I find that immediately suspect. To me: 1.) that pool player wouldn't know what proper fundamentals would even look like; and 2.) it smacks of a setup for an aiming system advertisement.

Since I started the thread, I guess you are talking about me. I have played pool in a bar maybe 4 times in my life. Not counting the last few months where I played in a league that played in a bar for 1/3 rd of the matches.

I also don't use any aiming systems except the regular ghost ball that I learned when I started playing about 25 years ago. This is me lining up on a shot, as you can see, everything is looking non-bar league type LOL https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=627977120587543&set=t.100005660052680&type=1&theater

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=565243036860952&set=t.100005660052680&type=1&theater

While I did not see exactly how the player was lining up on the shot, he did not jerk the cue around nor did he jump up off the shot. He had a good stance, stroke was normal and a lot better than many players I've seen that can make balls. He just missed 80% of his shots even if they were inches from the pockets. I don't mean just rattled them, he missed the pocket by at least off the point if not hitting the rail.

 

[sfleinen]

We will have to agree to disagree. I firmly believe a person can be trained to have a textbook perfect stroke and still end up with the cue pointed in the wrong direction.

A blind person can be trained to stroke perfectly. I am positive I could splice together a video showing a blind person addressing and shooting many perfect shots. I could make it so that no one watching would know that person can't see. Every viewer would be awed by the perfect fundamentals.

That person however could never see the shot line. If they ever found one then it would be pure luck.

That is obviously a radical extreme. But the fact is that vision and perception exist on a spectrum with each person's being slightly to radically different.

So with all respect I will stick with my point that perfect mechanics do not include perfect perception.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

John:

You are separating the "perception of the shot line" part from the fundamentals. Fundamentals aren't purely the "body parts are supposed to look and be positioned this way" physical notion. This is a common mistake from someone never trained in proper fundamentals -- it's EASY to assume that fundamentals are "purely physical."

Fact is, alignment is part and parcel of proper fundamentals. Fundamentals include the placement of the body for the proper perception of the shotline before you even get down into a stance. Perception has been taught for decades in snooker, and for many years in structured pool instruction as well (e.g. SPF). There's no use in even getting down into your stance unless you are in the proper position at the table to perceive the shot line correctly. Don't you think that basic tenet would be taught on day one?

-Sean

 

[sfleinen]

Since I started the thread, I guess you are talking about me. I have played pool in a bar maybe 4 times in my life. Not counting the last few months where I played in a league that played in a bar for 1/3 rd of the matches.

I also don't use any aiming systems except the regular ghost ball that I learned when I started playing about 25 years ago. This is me lining up on a shot, as you can see, everything is looking non-bar league type LOL https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=627977120587543&set=t.100005660052680&type=1&theater

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=565243036860952&set=t.100005660052680&type=1&theater

While I did not see exactly how the player was lining up on the shot, he did not jerk the cue around nor did he jump up off the shot. He had a good stance, stroke was normal and a lot better than many players I've seen that can make balls. He just missed 80% of his shots even if they were inches from the pockets. I don't mean just rattled them, he missed the pocket by at least off the point if not hitting the rail.

Not necessarily you, Lazar -- although I could've done a much better job at how I phrased that. (I'm on a boring conference call at work at the moment, and just whiling away some time waiting for it to complete.)

I heard this the other day while at my normal roost (poolhall), and a couple of the APA folks (it was their league night) were talking about this exact topic. Most had not even taken a structured lesson in their lives, so, to them, anyone with good fundamentals is someone that obviously has no overt scooping or swiping of the cue. That's it. (I actually asked a couple what their thoughts were on "good fundamentals" and that was their answer. To them, anyone that stayed down on the shot -- regardless of form, I might add -- had "good fundamentals.")

As you know, Lazar, merely "staying down on the shot" and not overtly scooping or swiping the cue is only scratching the surface of good fundamentals. There's far more to it than that. Pre-shot alignment is a big one that's easily overlooked, because most folks wouldn't count that in the "physical form and delivery sense" of fundamentals.

I would venture to guess (key operative word is "guess") whoever taught that person you observed, didn't teach the shot-perception part before even getting down into a stance. And, although it may not be immediately noticeable, his cue may not be delivered as straight as you may think. If his alignment "seems" to look good when looking down his cue, but then the shot goes awry, something is happening between point "A" ("set") and point "B" ("finish"). Sometimes even a small thing like e.g. the heel of the grip hand coming down upon the cue and making "bumping" contact during cue delivery induces a bit of yaw that causes a miss. You wouldn't see it from the front, because it probably happens upon cue tip contact with the cue ball (or shortly prior), and all you may see afterwards is the normal follow-through after the cue ball is already gone. It might look straight and look good, but something happened in there, that video capture analysis would show.

Just some ideas of things to look for,
-Sean

 

[BeiberLvr]

Which by all proper training standards, is an extremely rare occurrence. Unfortunately -- and I'm going to catch hell for saying this on a pool forum -- pool players not trained in proper fundamentals wouldn't know proper fundamentals if they fell upon him/her.

So when I hear the generic "grew up playing pool in a bar" types (e.g. leaguers) talking about how they witnessed a pool player "with good-looking / sound fundamentals" consistently missing shots, I find that immediately suspect. To me: 1.) that pool player wouldn't know what proper fundamentals would even look like; and 2.) it smacks of a setup for an aiming system advertisement.

Not to get into an aiming system discussion, but proper fundamentals LEND themselves to proper alignment. If you have a proper PSR and proper alignment (as part of the whole fundamentals discussion), it's virtually impossible to continually find yourself on the wrong line. That's what proper fundamentals is all about in the first place: to place you on the line for the shot, and have your body alignment such that you can deliver the cue straight down that line as possible.

Aiming systems only help to pinpoint that aim, not to fix your fundamentals.

P.S.: I know, I know; CTE/Pro-1 advocates will jump in with corrections saying that an indirect benefit of learning CTE/Pro-1 is that one's way of aligning and getting down on the shot is improved. While that may be true (and I believe it), this is roughly analogous to making the house fit the door, instead of vice-versa.

-Sean

I'll only say one thing about Pro One, because this thread doesn't deserve to get moved.

I've never thought of Pro One as an aiming system, as aiming (to me) can only be done when you're actually down on the shot. Instead, I've always thought of Pro One to be an alignment system. One that, with practice, will get the user on the proper shot line each and every time. Which as you already pointed out is part of the complete "fundamental package."

 

[hang-the-9]

Not necessarily you, Lazar -- although I could've done a much better job at how I phrased that. (I'm on a boring conference call at work at the moment, and just whiling away some time waiting for it to complete.)

I heard this the other day while at my normal roost (poolhall), and a couple of the APA folks (it was their league night) were talking about this exact topic. Most had not even taken a structured lesson in their lives, so, to them, anyone with good fundamentals is someone that obviously has no overt scooping or swiping of the cue. That's it. (I actually asked a couple what their thoughts were on "good fundamentals" and that was their answer. To them, anyone that stayed down on the shot -- regardless of form, I might add -- had "good fundamentals.")

As you know, Lazar, merely "staying down on the shot" and not overtly scooping or swiping the cue is only scratching the surface of good fundamentals. There's far more to it than that. Pre-shot alignment is a big one that's easily overlooked, because most folks wouldn't count that in the "physical form and delivery sense" of fundamentals.

I would venture to guess (key operative word is "guess") whoever taught that person you observed, didn't teach the shot-perception part before even getting down into a stance. And, although it may not be immediately noticeable, his cue may not be delivered as straight as you may think. If his alignment "seems" to look good when looking down his cue, but then the shot goes awry, something is happening between point "A" ("set") and point "B" ("finish"). Sometimes even a small thing like e.g. the heel of the grip hand coming down upon the cue and making "bumping" contact during cue delivery induces a bit of yaw that causes a miss. You wouldn't see it from the front, because it probably happens upon cue tip contact with the cue ball (or shortly prior), and all you may see afterwards is the normal follow-through after the cue ball is already gone. It might look straight and look good, but something happened in there, that video capture analysis would show.

Just some ideas of things to look for,
-Sean

Hm.. I think we may need to separate some things for the structure of how a pool player plays and learns. When I say "fundamentals" I mean just the physical ability to move the cue forward in a straight line with as little tip movement off that line. I don't mean if he sees the ball line properly, or even knows where the contact point is.

The other part of things that cause a miss is "knowing how to aim". This is where you go though actually looking at the two spheres to figure out how to get them to connect to send one to a pocket and how to get your eyes in the right spot for that to happen.

It's like a chef. First you learn not to burn yourself and how to use a knife without bleeding out, you learn about what the different foods are (say what the differences between beef and pork is). I would call that "Fundamentals". Then you get to the "Aiming" part. That is where you lean how different cuts of beef cook when you use different temperatures and different ways of slicing them, what spices go together, etc...

I don't know how the pro instructors would deal with a beginner, but from what I have seen, no player gets to an advanced level of fundamentals with a very low level of aiming. They both tend to go along together on a parallel paths. When I teach someone (once again, I'm not a pro player or even an A or even taken any type of instructor training), I start out with making sure they can push that cue forward so it's not wobbling all over the place and they are in a solid stance and bridge. Then I show them why they need to keep all that working properly to keep their aim from being random, then would go on to how to actually aim.

But I don't have them work only on the stroke till it's good then start on aim. A beginner stroke is enough to start to learn to aim I think. Which is why I found this player out of the ordinary, he seemed to have gotten to an advanced state of stroke (what I call Fundamentals, drops down over the cue well, no extra motion, smooth back and forward swings) with a D level of aim. I don't remember seeing the two of them together. If anything, the AIM part is often far ahead of many peoples fundamentals. I know may "pokers" that can pocket balls well enough to play. But I don't know any smooth strokers that can't pocket balls, or at least at that 80% miss level I saw this guy do.

 

[JB Cases]

John:

You are separating the "perception of the shot line" part from the fundamentals. Fundamentals aren't purely the "body parts are supposed to look and be positioned this way" physical notion. This is a common mistake from someone never trained in proper fundamentals -- it's EASY to assume that fundamentals are "purely physical."

Fact is, alignment is part and parcel of proper fundamentals. Fundamentals include the placement of the body for the proper perception of the shotline before you even get down into a stance. Perception has been taught for decades in snooker, and for many years in structured pool instruction as well (e.g. SPF). There's no use in even getting down into your stance unless you are in the proper position at the table to perceive the shot line correctly. Don't you think that basic tenet would be taught on day one?

-Sean

Again I will respectfully disagree. On YouTube I have found many videos discussing aiming and perception. Some of them point out that a person can step into the wrong "line of aim" as they call it. Thus a person can have an otherwise proper stance and delivery but not be perceiving the line of aim correctly.

What we THINK we see and what actually is are often two different things. Obvious examples include known optical illusions.

http://www.echalk.co.uk/amusements/OpticalIllusions/illusions.html

Once upon a time you said that you see the ghost ball as a fully formed sphere in the exact size sitting next to the actual object ball. I think you would agree that not very many people possess that ability to perceive or imagine a ghost ball in that level of detail.

I certainly don't.

Most people could not accurately draw a line an inch long. In fact modern forensic and cognitive science has repeatedly shown the fallible nature of eyewitness accounts of events.

What the eyes feed to the brain and the brain's subsequent reaction to direct the muscles is very much fluid and dependent on biological and neurological cues and interpretations. All this to say that what we see and perceive is not always what really is.

All it takes to miss a shot is the barest of error in the hit. Being just a teeny fraction off at the back of the cue ball where the tip is going to strike can result in a miss, either a small miss where the object ball rattles or a big miss where the object ball heads far away from the intended pocket.

What would you imagine would be the body and head position difference between a player who is able to go down to the perfect shot line and a player who goes down on the wrong shot line facing the cue ball? Let's say that the wrong shot line would send the object ball a half diamond away from the pocket, so a big miss.

Would you think that facing the cue ball with the object ball in sight that the difference would be an inch? Lets say that the big toe being on the perfect shot line is the measuring point, before the player goes down to the perfect shot line the big toe is and remains on the shot line.

So that means that the big toe of the player who will miss is not on the shot line while standing and not after getting down.

How much difference in those two body positions prior to getting down do you think is there?

I think it is very slight. I postulate that it's less than one inch. What does that one inch in body position mean to how the cue ball is addressed?

If so then that would be a difference of a human body standing up and looking at stationary objects with a one inch difference in perspective about to bend down to place the cue tip pointing at the cue ball of less than 1/16th of an inch or less than a few millimeters in my opinion.

That tiny difference makes all the difference if what I think is true.

This is what it means at the back of the cue ball. Perfect center in black.

I--------------------o--------------------I

Half a diamond miss in red.

I-------------------o---------------------I

Looking at a smooth sphere without the helpful dashes.

 

[Maniac]

Maniac:

If you're talking about this video (as one of the two -- can't find the other one at the moment), I disagree with the posters that said this was a pure "miss." Maybe by strict BCA / WPA rules convention, possibly, but the pocket wasn't missed at all.

Rather, it was determined that the "pocket-cam" had come loose -- intruding into the pocket itself -- and the object ball was bouncing directly backwards from it.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=bqmPIqMC6CI

The other video you mention -- where an 8-ball "swirls into and then back out of" the pocket onto the table, was due to the incredible spin on the ball, where it climbed the sides of the pocket bucket and back out onto the table. Even there, I'd gander that this is still an equipment problem, where the smooth / slick interior of the pocket bucket was probably compromised, to the point where a spinning object ball would "grab" onto it (which is not supposed to happen).

Thoughts?
-Sean

Yes Sean...that was one of the videos I was referring to...and I digress, as I knew nothing of the pocket-cam being loose...or even that there was one in the pocket.

The other video was the one showing a lot of sidespin bringing the ball back out onto the playing surface...but I wouldn't know where to find it. I can tell you this though...on my home table with leather/mesh pockets...this has happened on more than one occasion to me. And...I have seen numerous times this happening at the pool hall...so it is hard to blame the equipment every time (unless there is no such a thing as good equipment). I am not getting into the technicalities of what does or does not constitute a miss...but I still believe there are more than two ways to miss a shot...and that was all that was said in the first post I responded to concerning this line of discussion.

I do understand what LB and Scott Lee were trying to emphasize...and for the most part (as far as technicalities go) they were correct, as you are. Just that I'm not absolutely sure that someone can't come up with more than two ways to miss a shot if they want to put enough time and effort into it...which I personally do not.

Shoot 'em well, my friend!!! (and pray they stay IN the pockets!!! :grin And remember....do not take too many things I post on here as a totally serious response. I should probably use the "roll eyes" (sarcasm) emoticon a lot more often than I do.

Maniac

 

[FranCrimi]

John:

You are separating the "perception of the shot line" part from the fundamentals. Fundamentals aren't purely the "body parts are supposed to look and be positioned this way" physical notion. This is a common mistake from someone never trained in proper fundamentals -- it's EASY to assume that fundamentals are "purely physical."

Fact is, alignment is part and parcel of proper fundamentals. Fundamentals include the placement of the body for the proper perception of the shotline before you even get down into a stance. Perception has been taught for decades in snooker, and for many years in structured pool instruction as well (e.g. SPF). There's no use in even getting down into your stance unless you are in the proper position at the table to perceive the shot line correctly. Don't you think that basic tenet would be taught on day one?

-Sean

I agree, Sean. Well put. Alignment is a fundamental.

 

[Maniac]

Here's a question for all of you: How can a guy with a constant wobbly stroke...with poor vision...bad neck vertebrae (chronic neck stiffness as a result)...weak lower lumbar muscles...a stance that does not put either foot on the shot line (nor points in the proper direction)...be consistent enough as a shotmaker to play at "B" speed on a real good day???

And a guy with perfect execution cannot make 3 balls in a row???


IMO...it's all in what happens between the back of the final stroke and the point where the tip strikes the cueball. If the final stroke is not delivered properly...it doesn't matter how good or bad one's fundamentals are...or how well they can see the shot line.

That said...do I (the one with the constant wobbly stroke) just get lucky more often than the guy with seemingly perfect fundamentals (but can't string 3 balls)...or is it something else???


I don't know...but I think it may have a lot to do with me getting something right between the final backstroke and striking the cueball more often than the other guy.

I need some comments on this (before we get moved to the aiming forum ).

Maniac

 

[TheThaiger]

Again I will respectfully disagree. On YouTube I have found many videos discussing aiming and perception. Some of them point out that a person can step into the wrong "line of aim" as they call it. Thus a person can have an otherwise proper stance and delivery but not be perceiving the line of aim correctly.

I don't remember you commenting on the video I linked of how Potts says he aims. Do you want it reposting?

Given we've all seen how you play the game, after 30 years of trying, I'd sit quietly at the back if I were you, listening.

 

[PhilosopherKing]

By horrible shot making I mean missing a ball less than a foot from the pocket with only a few feet between the cueball and the object ball.

I ran into a guy this weekend playing, he had what looked to be an OK cue, had a good stance, a nice level stroke, did not do anything funny with his body or head. Yet he would miss shots that looked so easy you'd have to be a rank beginner to miss. I did not play with him, but the shots he'd miss with that good stance and stoke dumbfounded me totally.

Before anyone says he was trying to look bad to get a game, this is not a "palyers" room, the most gambling that happens is a game of 3-6-9 for a buck a ball every week LOL. He was also playing with a few friends that came in later and looked the same, got down on the ball, looked to be lined up with the shot from where I was, and would miss by an inch from less than a foot away.

I just don't see how you can get good enough to look that good in your stoke, yet not be able to make a simple shot. Has anyone ran into this before?

Maybe he gets distracted and uncomfortable when strange men stare at him from across a room.

 

[Maniac]

And BTW....I suck at pool!!! :thumbup:

Maniac

 

[hang-the-9]

When I was talking about great mechanics (or fundamentals I guess) I did not mean the fundamentals of the WHOLE package of aiming, just of being able to hold the cue and your body properly over the table and adress the cueball in a straight line.

This guy has a lot of aim but not a lot of good stoke LOL. He's almost the opposite of what my original post was about.

He "ratches" into his shots, clearly an aiming system guy.

http://youtu.be/Fj9isVyh_g4?t=9m22s

Is he a "good" player because he knows how to line up some system to make a ball? I don't think so. Just like those people putting together an iPhone in China are not good engineers, someone told them turn the screwdriver this way, push this button, turn the phone 45% and you will do what you need to get done.

 

[Maniac]

Maybe he gets distracted and uncomfortable when strange men stare at him from across a room.

That's funny....but there may be some truth to it.

There is such a thing as having "performance-anxiety". I used to suffer from this when I bowled in leagues.....but years of bowling and a lot of alcohol have cured me of this...and my game steadily improved.

Maniac (but...sucks at bowling too!!! )

 

[fireball]

what gene said +1

My bad eye plays tricks on me and i make hard shots and miss easy ones when my right eye gets fuzzy