Great mechanics but horrible shot making, can it happen?

[JB Cases]

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

Is it?

So you can pick out the 100% correct shot line from the standing position for any shot?

Do you think that you do it exactly the same when looking at a cut to the right as a cut to the left?

Do you see equally well with the left eye as the right eye?

I personally would love to see an experiment done with one of those overhead cameras which could project the lines onto the table.

This would be the experiment.

I would ask players to get into the position standing up that they would think is right to bend down into the shot. That would be recorded. Then I would ask them to bend down into the shot with the cue addressing center ball. That would be recorded.

Then would project the exact shot line onto the table and measure how close they are for a variety of shots.

The players could do any sort of aiming they liked with no need to describe what they are doing. The standing position and the shooting positions would be noted.

I would be curious as to what the data would show. How many players of various skill levels would be on the shot line close enough that a centerball hit on the cue ball should make the shot?

I once took a lesson from a good road player. As I bent down to break in one pocket he was facing me from the rack end and said, "what are you looking at?"

I said, "I am aiming to split the balls" and he said no you're not, you are going to hit the head ball too thickly. I said I am dead on to split the balls. He said go ahead and break and I did and sure enough I hit the head ball too thick. What I thought was perfect was off. I had to retrain myself to see that particular shot differently, essentially forcing myself to see it wrong until seeing it right was the default position.

What this did to me however was make me understand that a lot of what I THOUGHT was 100% right when sizing up a shot could be off. Until that time I had no idea that this would even be possible if someone had played enough. I had already had 20 years of play under my belt with plenty of victories. I would have bet and lost a hundred dollars that I was properly lined up when the road player said I wasn't.

So I do again disagree. Visual acuity and perception could be fundamentals that could be trained but learning proper stroke methods does not lead one to proper perception of the actual shot line in my opinion. I think that training perception is the basis of all the ghost ball trainers and is the reason why alternative aiming methods both work and are controversial.

Because, it IS training to force your brain to ignore what your vision/perception is showing you in order to make a conscious choice to take a different position. And once you have retrained your brain to take that different position enough times the false line is no longer even seen in my opinion.

IF one is diligent enough though. Because half measures and half assed practice leads to half-assed results when it counts. This I also know from recent personal experience.

 

[sfleinen]

Is it?

So you can pick out the 100% correct shot line from the standing position for any shot?

Do you think that you do it exactly the same when looking at a cut to the right as a cut to the left?

Do you see equally well with the left eye as the right eye?

John, I know you directed this at Fran, but I hope you (and she) don't mind that I jump in here, now that I'm off my work conference call.

The answer to all four questions above is a qualified YES. I say qualified, because obviously, we are dealing with human beings, and every person perceives things slightly differently. But part of learning proper fundamentals, is learning how YOU perceive things, and locking in on those parameters.

I personally would love to see an experiment done with one of those overhead cameras which could project the lines onto the table.

This would be the experiment.

I would ask players to get into the position standing up that they would think is right to bend down into the shot. That would be recorded. Then I would ask them to bend down into the shot with the cue addressing center ball. That would be recorded.

Then would project the exact shot line onto the table and measure how close they are for a variety of shots.

The players could do any sort of aiming they liked with no need to describe what they are doing. The standing position and the shooting positions would be noted.

I would be curious as to what the data would show. How many players of various skill levels would be on the shot line close enough that a centerball hit on the cue ball should make the shot?

Good experiment. I think you would find that most players below a certain level of expertise would be pretty consistent[ly good] in their pre- and post-stance alignment, because they've learned their personal perceptive abilities very well. Below that threshold, and you'll see folks all over the map -- including those that need to continue alignment and aiming after already assuming their shooting stance.

I once took a lesson from a good road player. As I bent down to break in one pocket he was facing me from the rack end and said, "what are you looking at?"

I said, "I am aiming to split the balls" and he said no you're not, you are going to hit the head ball too thickly. I said I am dead on to split the balls. He said go ahead and break and I did and sure enough I hit the head ball too thick. What I thought was perfect was off. I had to retrain myself to see that particular shot differently, essentially forcing myself to see it wrong until seeing it right was the default position.

And here's the deal: that road player was saying the same thing I'm saying to you now -- that your fundamentals did NOT include complete mastery of your personal perceptive abilities. Your fundamentals had holes. You still had not mastered your perceptive abilities to the point where, while standing, "you see it," bend down, and then "you shoot it." He asked you what you were looking at, because even from his standpoint, he could see that you were misaligned. And he wasn't even behind the cue -- nor did he have to have any master of aiming systems or the like.

What this did to me however was make me understand that a lot of what I THOUGHT was 100% right when sizing up a shot could be off. Until that time I had no idea that this would even be possible if someone had played enough. I had already had 20 years of play under my belt with plenty of victories. I would have bet and lost a hundred dollars that I was properly lined up when the road player said I wasn't.

You're actually proving my point by regaling us with your experience with that road player. He proved to you that your PSR and fundamentals had a big hole -- and not just on that one shot. The fact you had that issue on that one shot shows that you had not mastered your own perceptive abilities. I'll bet later on (days, weeks, month, years, whatever), you found more shots like that, where "what you shot at while down there" wasn't "what you saw up there" while standing?

So I do again disagree. Visual acuity and perception could be fundamentals that could be trained but learning proper stroke methods does not lead one to proper perception of the actual shot line in my opinion.

We're not saying that. What we're saying is that "fundamentals" -- which is the word being misused here in this thread -- includes all of the following: visual acuity, alignment according to that visual acuity, proper stance, and proper stroke methods. Only two of those four things are physical (the latter two).

I think it'd be quite rare to encounter someone with truly good fundamentals that doesn't include alignment-to-that-good-visual-acuity as part of the package. I say that from a formal training standpoint, as I received instruction from both the snooker and pool disciplines, and I'm familiar with the syllabus of each's formal structured instruction.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

I think that training perception is the basis of all the ghost ball trainers and is the reason why alternative aiming methods both work and are controversial.

Because, it IS training to force your brain to ignore what your vision/perception is showing you in order to make a conscious choice to take a different position. And once you have retrained your brain to take that different position enough times the false line is no longer even seen in my opinion.

IF one is diligent enough though. Because half measures and half assed practice leads to half-assed results when it counts. This I also know from recent personal experience.

Concerning the bolded part above, don't think for a second that formal structured instruction doesn't include that. It does, John. That's why I made the bold claim previously that your stance on this issue is from someone that'd not gone through any formal training syllabus on this. I'm not saying you're not knowledgeable -- far from saying that. No, what I'm saying is that your knowledge of the fundamentals issue is from a fractured standpoint -- i.e. piecemealed from years of informal instruction from road players and pros; books; DVDs; trial and error; etc. You can't make assumptions about what constitutes "fundamentals" if you've never taken any formal instruction in a structured manner. Among the many other things learned through formal instruction, there really IS something to having someone with this knowledge film you, and then critique your fundamentals, showing you every step of the way why "what you are seeing down there" (i.e. in your stance) isn't "what you saw up there" (i.e. standing at the table / pre-shot alignment) -- why you're off.

Decades ago, I used to be of the standpoint, "hey, I consider myself a fairly smart guy; why should I spend the money on pool instruction (money "better spent" on a new cue, etc.) when I can piecemeal that knowledge on my own? E.g. "go 'here' for stance knowledge, go 'there' for bridge knowledge, go 'somewhere there' for how to align, etc. -- and then glue them all together?" That is, until, I took some formal instruction and had my socks blown off with the revelation of how much I didn't know, and how many more important aspects I was skipping because I was making "assumptions" of what was important and why. I think back at those days, and I just <tisk, tisk> at myself that I made so many assumptions about what is thought constituted "good fundamentals."

-Sean

 

[His Boy Elroy]

I'll bet I've missed a million balls that were of a 30 degree or less cut. The reason was squirt, swerve, and throw. When the cut becomes more than 30 degrees, (half ball hit) I begin missing some due to inaccurate aiming; however, I very rarely aim wrong on cuts less than 30 degrees on my 8 footer. Well; my old 8 footer. R.I.P in the garbage dump. I'll be playing on a 9 footer in a few days. We'll see if things change

I find aiming on cuts less than 30 degrees to be pretty simple. I believe the situation was most aptly phrased in this forum recently: "I aim for the part of the of the ball that says IN!"

I've said this in previous posts and I've ticked people off. It's not my intention to. If this was a special talent and I stated it as I did, that would be an understandable reaction. It's just that I don't understand how this could be considered a special talent.

I once read something by an art teacher who said that anyone could be taught to draw, but that first, the basic fundamentals of drawing must be learned. He said someone lacking the knowledge of the basic fundamentals is simply incapable of producing a drawing worth looking at.

He said that if you tell a group of 6 year olds to draw a picture before they have been taught the fundamentals, some will display an intrinsic knowledge of all the fundamentals, some will display an intrinsic knowledge of some of the fundamentals, and others will display their lack of knowledge of any of the fundamentals.

He further stated that after teaching all of the 6 year olds all of the fundamentals he begins to teach them more advanced skills. At this point something very interesting happens. Some of the 6 year olds who had an intrinsic knowledge of all the fundamentals turn out to display an abundance of talent. Some with the intrinsic knowledge of all the fundamentals display very little talent and are unable to produce drawings beyond the fundamental level.

On the flip side of that; while some of the 6 year olds who display no knowledge of the fundamentals also are never able to produce drawings beyond the fundamental level, some 6 year olds who display no knowledge of the fundamentals display so much talent after learning the fundamentals that they go on to become professional artists.

When I read GinoMachino, although I haven't looked at what he's doing in any detail, I think maybe he's onto something. Maybe there are fundamental things with the eyes that everyone has to learn before they can see the line of the shot properly. Maybe some players have an intrinsic knowledge of all these fundamentals without being taught. Maybe some have an intrinsic knowledge of some of the fundamentals, and maybe some lack a knowledge of any of the fundamentals....and maybe some players who lack an intrinsic knowledge of any of the eye fundamentals are the one's with an abundance of talent who will display it as soon as they learn the proper eye fundamentals.

 

[His Boy Elroy]

Sure, it's actually kind of common. Find a relative amateur who got good coaching early on.

They have good form, they know to avoid steering and dipping and other bad habits.
But they're going to miss routine shots because they just don't know where to aim.
They haven't hit that shot a million times yet so when they're lining up,
they don't have that little voice in their head that says "ok, stop adjusting, that's perfect."

It could be the head position as Geno says.

Another common flaw is someone perceiving center ball incorrectly.
They put a hair of left on every single shot that they think is centerball, or a hair of right.

I think it's a bit of an understatement to say that one of the common flaws in a pool player's game is that they put a hair of unintentional English on a center ball hit. I mean; if this is a flaw that never comes to fore in your center ball hit, you must be the best player in the world!

 

[genomachino]

Results speak for themselves............

I'll bet I've missed a million balls that were of a 30 degree or less cut. The reason was squirt, swerve, and throw. When the cut becomes more than 30 degrees, (half ball hit) I begin missing some due to inaccurate aiming; however, I very rarely aim wrong on cuts less than 30 degrees on my 8 footer. Well; my old 8 footer. R.I.P in the garbage dump. I'll be playing on a 9 footer in a few days. We'll see if things change

I find aiming on cuts less than 30 degrees to be pretty simple. I believe the situation was most aptly phrased in this forum recently: "I aim for the part of the part of the ball that says IN!"

I've said this in previous posts and I've ticked people off. It's not my intention to. If this was a special talent and I stated it as I did, that would be an understandable reaction. It's just that I don't understand how this could be considered a special talent.

I once read something by an art teacher who said that anyone could be taught to draw, but that first, the basic fundamentals of drawing must be learned. He said someone lacking the knowledge of the basic fundamentals is simply incapable of producing a drawing worth looking at.

He said that if you tell a group of 6 year olds to draw a picture before they have been taught the fundamentals, some will display an intrinsic knowledge of all the fundamentals, some will display an intrinsic knowledge of some of the fundamentals, and others will display their lack of knowledge of any of the fundamentals.

He further stated that after teaching all of the 6 year olds all of the fundamentals he begins to teach them more advanced skills. At this point something very interesting happens. Some of the 6 year olds who had an intrinsic knowledge of all the fundamentals turn out to display an abundance of talent. Some with the intrinsic knowledge of all the fundamentals display very little talent and are unable to produce drawings beyond the fundamental level.

On the flip side of that; while some of the 6 year olds who display no knowledge of the fundamentals also are never able to produce drawings beyond the fundamental level, some 6 year olds who display no knowledge of the fundamentals display so much talent after learning the fundamentals that they go on to become professional artists.

When I read GinoMachino, although I haven't looked at what he's doing in any detail, I think maybe he's onto something. Maybe there are fundamental things with the eyes that everyone has to learn before they can see the line of the shot properly. Maybe some players have an intrinsic knowledge of all these fundamentals without being taught. Maybe some have an intrinsic knowledge of some of the fundamentals, and maybe some lack a knowledge of any of the fundamentals....and maybe some players who lack an intrinsic knowledge of any of the eye fundamentals are the one's with an abundance of talent who will display it as soon as they learn the proper eye fundamentals.

There is a reason that every single phone lesson I give gets on here and says how well it works.

That's because it works for everyone. They can see it works with their own eyes and the balls go in the hole.

Some people do this better naturally right out of the gate. But I have proved over and over with all the lessons and testimonials, that Perfect Aim will improve anyones game.

From beginning to the pro's

The higher the level player that learns this like Rodney Morris, the more they appreciate the value of what they learned.

Lower level players are impressed but sometimes don't really understand how huge what they learned was. They are just happy that they can make the shots that they had trouble with before and they can see with their own eyes why.

I'm doing the best I can do to teach as many players as possible but it's hard to convince players that they really aren't seeing what they think they are.

The correct adjustment with the eyes makes all the difference and the player can now see naturally what they eyes need to see.

Thank you for your insight realizing that there is something to it.

Kind of amazing that you don't get players on here saying it doesn't work.

When every I meet someone that just bought the video and tried to learn from that I like to give them a little help.

Once this is done they really understand the value of what they have learned and experienced.

It all starts with the eyes. The stance and the stroke follows the eyes.

If you had a horse and buggy and the horse was over 10 feet to the left.

If you wanted to line them up would you move the buggy or the horse?

Of course you would move the horse.

The shot on the pool table is like the buggy. You are the horse.

You are the only thing we can move. Know where Perfect is in the preshot and coming down with the same look we can get pretty Perfect. The stance is in the correct position and so is the stroke almost naturally with very little tweaking left to do. . Your dominant eye just gets you there if you know how to do it.

Perfect Aim is so simple but can be a bear to figure out on your own.

Nobody ever figured this out before. So good luck with monkey see, monkey do.

This is how we learn many things we learn with pool.

I can teach a player with 10 players standing around trying to figure this out. After about 5 minutes they quit watching because the only one that can see what's going on is the person I'm showing with their eyes.

Give me a call sometime and i will show you with the phone lesson how well this works. you too can see it with your own eye why they all get on the threads and say how well this works.

It's very satisfying for me as a teacher to be able to help a player so much in just a couple of hours.

My claim that this will cut any players misses about in half almost immediately once they learn how to apply it is an underestimate.

Just give me a call when your by a table. 715=563=8712.

If I'm not available just try again sometime.

It will be the most valuable thing you could ever learn as a pool player.

And you will agree because you will see the results with your own eyes/

You will know why you missed the same type of shots over and over.

Thanks again................

 

[Neil]

Sean, I have to disagree with you. While closely tied together, I view fundamentals and alignment as two categories, not one. Fundamentals are what make you have a straight stroke. Alignment is part of aiming.

 

[FranCrimi]

I don't understand what the big philosophical debate is all about. The basic premise of shooting pool is to shoot balls into pockets and/or to shoot balls to a particular location.

The basic steps that involve the execution of that process are the fundamentals, which include the alignment process.

Then there are mechanics, which comprise specific areas of the fundamentals, such as stroke mechanics, or the mechanics of approach, bridging, and so-on.

 

[Sloppy Pockets]

I don't understand what the big philosophical debate is all about. The basic premise of shooting pool is to shoot balls into pockets or to shoot balls to a particular location.

The basic steps that involve the execution of that process are the fundamentals, which include the alignment process.

If a player can do that at a very high level in spite of having an awkward stance and a crooked stroke with poor follow through, can he or she be said to have sound fundamentals?

 

[FranCrimi]

If a player can do that at a very high level in spite of having an awkward stance and a crooked stroke with poor follow through, can he or she be said to have sound fundamentals?

I think the question you're asking is whether there is a specific set of fundamentals which are considered sound fundamentals.

I think that there is a broad range of what would be considered sound fundamentals which can be defined as approaching the necessary steps in a way that does not adversely affect the human anatomy.

People who play in an awkward way, even though they may play at a high level for a period of time, eventually will suffer some kind of consequences, whether it is early fatigue due to constantly being off-balance, or muscle and joint strain, due to fighting against the natural physique, and even eye strain in some cases.

So, a crooked stroke could be the result of something worse that's going on with that person. I'd need more information to tell for sure.

 

[sfleinen]

Sean, I have to disagree with you. While closely tied together, I view fundamentals and alignment as two categories, not one. Fundamentals are what make you have a straight stroke. Alignment is part of aiming.

Neil:

In the bolded part above, what you are talking about are mechanics, which is one component of fundamentals. "Fundamentals" means those items which are basic and essential. Basic and essential doesn't necessarily have to be limited to just the physical/mechanical items. The alignment part is basic and essential, and falls under the fundamentals umbrella.

-Sean

 

[Sloppy Pockets]

I think the question you're asking is whether there is a specific set of fundamentals which are considered sound fundamentals.

No, I was just trying to address what I thought lay behind the debate over the meaning of the word "fundamentals". I see that you edited the post I quoted you in earlier to include the line about mechanics (highlighted in bold below). That clarifies your thinking to me.

I don't understand what the big philosophical debate is all about. The basic premise of shooting pool is to shoot balls into pockets and/or to shoot balls to a particular location.

The basic steps that involve the execution of that process are the fundamentals, which include the alignment process.

Then there are mechanics, which comprise specific areas of the fundamentals, such as stroke mechanics, or the mechanics of approach, bridging, and so-on.

Earlier, you said this about mechanics.

You can't have great mechanics and miss shots most of the time. That doesn't define great mechanics. Regardless of how that person looks at the table, they do not have great mechanics.

I assumed you meant stroke and stance mechanics at the time I first read this, not a player's entire set of fundamentals.

I think a lot of the arguments that develop on Internet forums arise from debates over semantics that just end up going off the rails after awhile. I see it happen all the time in the "aiming" forum.

In this case, the OP used the word "mechanics" in the title, and then went on to show he was talking about how the player looked at the table. Somewhere along the way, the word "fundamentals" was substituted for the word "mechanics".

I think the OP was just puzzled about how somebody could get to the point where he appeared to have good mechanics and still couldn't make a ball. The obvious answer is that his alignment and shot approach don't lead him to the correct shot line, so no stroke is gonna save him.

How did he get sound looking playing mechanics without getting good at pocketing balls? Maybe he watches a lot of great players and is trying to emulate their movements in a "monkey see, monkey do" fashion in an attempt to develop a good stroke. Unfortunately, that doesn't put balls in the hole all by itself.

 

[sfleinen]

[...]
How did he get sound looking playing mechanics without getting good at pocketing balls? Maybe he watches a lot of great players and is trying to emulate their movements in a "monkey see, monkey do" fashion in an attempt to develop a good stroke. Unfortunately, that doesn't put balls in the hole all by itself.

Dan:

That's right. One of the problems in pool is the "piecemealing" of information that's used to learn, and the resistance to a structured syllabus. Pool grew from a "roll your own" learning methodology, and in a way, this very same "roll your own" method of learning is also what's hurting pool in comparison to other cue sports. At least here in the U.S. (it's very different in Europe and Asia).

You see it evidenced here, in this very thread, as Exhibit A. I.e. the separation of alignment from the basic and essential umbrella known as fundamentals. And, you see it in the thread title, where the OP is rightfully questioning how in the world someone can have great mechanics, but yet not make a ball? It is the "roll your own" method of learning -- "get 'this' from here, get 'that' from there, etc." -- without a structured syllabus, whereby this unfortunate division and pulling-apart of related basic and essential items (i.e. mechanics + alignment = fundamentals, "but only interested in learning mechanics") takes place.

If I were to engage in a little "root-cause conjecture" about the player that the OP describes, here you have a player who obviously focused on his mechanics, but yet somehow skipped over the emphasis of alignment in his readings / observations of what constitutes good form. This is a good example of a player who did the "get 'this' from here, get 'that' from there" extraction of something very specific that he wanted to learn, and skipped/ignored the accompanying instruction of how to align before even engaging those good mechanics. It's like he wanted to build a good engine for his car, but did not want to read the chapters of how to build the steering system to guide that car.

If I were to put my finger on it, that would be my best guess of how this could possibly happen -- a player has good mechanics (although, again, I'm suspicious of a pool player identifying this) but yet not make a ball.

Just some conjecture,
-Sean

 

[Sloppy Pockets]

If I were to engage in a little "root-cause conjecture" about the player that the OP describes, here you have a player who obviously focused on his mechanics, but yet somehow skipped over the emphasis of alignment in his readings / observations of what constitutes good form. This is a good example of a player who did the "get 'this' from here, get 'that' from there" extraction of something very specific that he wanted to learn, and skipped/ignored the accompanying instruction of how to align before even engaging those good mechanics. It's like he wanted to build a good engine for his car, but did not want to read the chapters of how to build the steering system to guide that car.

Or maybe he is like me and got the right info but just didn't understand it correctly.

I had a lesson with Fran last year. After watching me hit some balls around for a few minutes I asked her how my stroke was. She said something along the lines of, "Your stroke is fine, your alignment is off."

Then she proceeded to outline a specific way to step into the shot, the net result being that I was much more to the left of the shot line then I previously was. Problem is that I didn't understand the correct meaning of the term "alignment" at the time. I thought she was just trying to get my body over so I could clear my right hip better with my stroke. I had no clue that this was a visual alignment as well.

Well, I worked with what she showed me, and worked a lot on my stroke and my stance. Not so much improvement like I hoped for. I watched literally hundreds of great matches and tried to see what was good about the mechanics of the best players. Stroke improved, ball pocketing percentage stayed roughly the same.

I was at a point where I was getting ready to sell my expensive $50 cue and quit the game and take up something else. Then I met you at SBE and I started trying to use a snooker stance and a little light went on. Not only could I clear my hips better, I was aligning with my body more to the left. Things suddenly got a little better, but there was something missing that I couldn't quite put my finger on. Or should I say, I couldn't put my eyes on.

Until just a couple days ago, I had no sure idea which eye was really dominant, which eye was being used for left or right cuts, or how to tell where my vision center was at all. Then I had a phone session with Geno and the clouds disappeared and the sun came out. That's how dramatic it was for me at any rate, maybe because of my wacky vision problems.

There is no doubt in my mind now that I am consistently pocketing balls at least 10% better or so, just from knowing how to tell if I am on the correct line to make the shot. Before this, I would aim the shot and it looked real good, then I would get down and shoot and watch the CB go to a slightly different place... and, of course, I would miss. Since then I am taking the time with each shot to make sure I am on the correct side and the shot still looks real good like before, but it goes in the hole now. At least most of the time.

 

[JB Cases]

Take Ronnie O'Sullivan and place him on the incorrect shot line and he will miss the shot using PERFECT mechanics.

 

[hang-the-9]

Take Ronnie O'Sullivan and place him on the incorrect shot line and he will miss the shot using PERFECT mechanics.

Exactly. It seems that there is a general lumping together of what I started out separating which was "how can a player that played enough to develop a good looking stance and stoke not have learned how to aim at the same time he was learning to hold the cue stick?".

I don't think I have ran across someone that had a very smooth stroke and was lined up over the cue well without motion miss so bad on easy shots, which is what prompted me to post this. I don't travel enough to see THAT many players, but every time I've seen a guy miss a lot, it was because they were moving or doing something wrong with their stance or cue (swerve, aiming by moving the cue a lot while in the stance already, etc...). This good stoke and stance with missing is new to me. To the extent I have seen in the player I saw. Clearly you can miss a good number or shots if you line up wrong, but even then if you develop your stroke enough to look like a B player or higher, your misses will an exception.

 

[itsfroze]

I'd say that's about right, and look at the bright side it only took 95 POSTS to get there.

Could easily have been twice that many. :thumbup:

EDIT: There still might be that many posts, LOL

 

[Maniac]

Take Ronnie O'Sullivan and place him on the incorrect shot line and he will miss the shot using PERFECT mechanics.

Take Tony Metz (me) and put him on the correct shot line and he will make shots all day long using VERY FLAWED mechanics.

What does that tell us???

That the correct shot line may be the most important factor in ball-pocketing???

Maybe that, coupled with a pure final delivery of the cue???

I don't know, but I do know that my mechanics (wobbly stroke) caused by physical limitations do not hinder me from being a good shotmaker. Maybe it is because like Nick Varner and Stevie Moore (with their shaking grip hands)...I deliver the cue as straight as necessary on my final delivery.

This is a good and interesting thread!!!

Maniac

 

[JB Cases]

Take Tony Metz (me) and put him on the correct shot line and he will make shots all day long using VERY FLAWED mechanics.

What does that tell us???

That the correct shot line may be the most important factor in ball-pocketing???

Maybe that, coupled with a pure final delivery of the cue???

I don't know, but I do know that my mechanics (wobbly stroke) caused by physical limitations do not hinder me from being a good shotmaker. Maybe it is because like Nick Varner and Stevie Moore (with their shaking grip hands)...I deliver the cue as straight as necessary on my final delivery.

This is a good and interesting thread!!!

Maniac

Well,

You can be on the right shot line and still hit the ball straight down that line with bad mechanics. I think a lot of people are that way, sometimes the ball goes straight down the line, sometimes it does not.

Sometimes you get on the wrong shot line and manage to steer the cue ball to the right spot to make the object ball.

Good shotmaker is also relative. Good in comparison to what?

What's your score on the Colin Colenso pocketing test? How about your Billiard University score?

I think most of us don't know and are somewhat afraid of the answer. Maybe we aren't as good as we think we are comparatively.

But one thing is certain, putting you on the wrong shot line and you managing to hit the ball 100% down that line will be a miss. For you and for Ronnie.

 

[Maniac]

But one thing is certain, putting you on the wrong shot line and you managing to hit the ball 100% down that line will be a miss. For you and for Ronnie.

No doubt about it.

As far as the tests.....I quit doing those back in high school....about 43 years ago!!! :thumbup:

Maniac

 

[genomachino]

Your getting hot.........

Take Tony Metz (me) and put him on the correct shot line and he will make shots all day long using VERY FLAWED mechanics.

What does that tell us???

That the correct shot line may be the most important factor in ball-pocketing???

Maybe that, coupled with a pure final delivery of the cue???

I don't know, but I do know that my mechanics (wobbly stroke) caused by physical limitations do not hinder me from being a good shotmaker. Maybe it is because like Nick Varner and Stevie Moore (with their shaking grip hands)...I deliver the cue as straight as necessary on my final delivery.

This is a good and interesting thread!!!

Maniac

Sometimes I feel like I'm playing tag, trying to help players.

Your right on this one.

Get the alignment right and you can see what is going on.

The stance gets a little more in line.
The stroke gets a little bit more in line.
The shot even looks better before you shoot it.

Many shots we miss didn't look right when we get down and aim.

Your on the right track now............