How would you attack this?

Steve Lipsky said:
I have seen more than my share of older players trying to play like this because they know the old-time pros did... most of them could run balls if they let themselves but instead, they just get stuck in the rack (or just run out of open balls to shoot), frame after frame.

- Steve
Click to expand...

this is so so so true. pool in general, and 14.1 especially, is all about knowing yourself, your game. that's because it is a game of choices,,,,the RIGHT choices for YOU. the choices you make defines the table you create.

one simply cannot ask another, even a reyes or orttman, to play the game ervolino/hopkins/garcia plays. that would be asking them to not be who they are. i for instance, even though i know there's more room for error in a wide open game, cannot play that way because i cannot see the longer shots,,,,,so i have to keep the layout small. my patterns are unconventional but make sense to me because i know what i can and cannot do.
 
Last edited:
Steve Lipsky said:
Dave, the two players you mentioned are off-the-charts talented. The advice you gave in the post above is simply not conducive to improving runs for most players.

The reason that Allen and Jose can play like this is because of their ability to move the cueball so precisely, as well as their insight into exactly how to break a cluster. Finally, their pattern play is so pretty that they can see a jumble of balls and quickly deduce how to play it without really moving anything.

For players like this, there is no need to accept the slight volatility of hitting the rack hard.

There are a few handfuls of players alive with this ability. You named two of them and then claimed that everyone should play that way. I think you do a great disservice to amateur players trying to advocate this method.

I have seen more than my share of older players trying to play like this because they know the old-time pros did... most of them could run balls if they let themselves but instead, they just get stuck in the rack (or just run out of open balls to shoot), frame after frame.

- Steve
Click to expand...

i agree players must play thier own way

however there are secrets to the game. like key balls and insurance balls so on...

jose and allen didnt get wake up and be able to run 100 balls. its about consistancy and not taking chances. this includes not creating trouble. smashing and jamming multiple balls on the rails will not equate in high runs ay all

when i break the balls i use a meduim shot. then i identify my touble ball and attack them first. i always leave a ball on the back rail and down table incase i get stuck or out of line. then when every ball has a pocket i identify my break shot then the 3 key balls to get me on that break shot. attack the balls on the rails first. then play my pattern. every shot is a skilled shot

anyone can learn hot to play this way and its only a matter of time til they run 100, 200 or more
 
dave sutton said:
i agree players must play thier own way

however there are secrets to the game. like key balls and insurance balls so on...

jose and allen didnt get wake up and be able to run 100 balls. its about consistancy and not taking chances. this includes not creating trouble. smashing and jamming multiple balls on the rails will not equate in high runs ay all

when i break the balls i use a meduim shot. then i identify my touble ball and attack them first. i always leave a ball on the back rail and down table incase i get stuck or out of line. then when every ball has a pocket i identify my break shot then the 3 key balls to get me on that break shot. attack the balls on the rails first. then play my pattern. every shot is a skilled shot

anyone can learn hot to play this way and its only a matter of time til they run 100, 200 or more
Click to expand...

Dave,
I agree with you and I also agree with Steve. I believe that players that have the ability to work through the balls will play in the fashion that Jose and Allen play. Guys like Ervolino liked to smash the hell out of the rack because they liked running open balls, and they were able to use almost anything as a break ball.

I was taught both ways by Cisero Murphy, and both come in handy when playing in different table conditions. I have noticed that my game used to be the nudge and budge game, however recently I have begun experimenting with different break methods and pattern play due to the advent of the faster cloth - which IMO, changed the dynamics of how you play this game. What works today for some of the players would not have worked back in Mosconi's day due to the equipment. The balls spread easier on Simonis, IMO.

Your strategy best describes how I was taught to play 14.1. When you watch players today drawing the cue ball off the stack and going uptable and back towards the center, it boggles the mind, however the faster cloth allows players like Thorsten to play these types of shots consistently, and this will influence a lot of the younger players. I don't mind this, it's a lot better than playing the short attention span/short races of 9 ball. :p
 
Let's not overlook the difference in conditions back then.

For a given speed of stroke, the balls would spread less in the old days, and that, in part, explains why more players had to, or chose to, or play the rack like a surgeon. Yes, there were a few, like Ervolino, Rempe, and Lassiter, who were willing to cream the break shot to get spreads comparable to those more typical of what you see on Simonis 860 today. Many, however, understood, that making the ball came first, and wouldn't chance hitting it extra hard to be sure of spreading them.

Yes, straight pool playing philosophies have evolved, but some of it is directly traceable to changes n the equipment.
 
dave sutton said:
i agree players must play thier own way

however there are secrets to the game. like key balls and insurance balls so on...

jose and allen didnt get wake up and be able to run 100 balls. its about consistancy and not taking chances. this includes not creating trouble. smashing and jamming multiple balls on the rails will not equate in high runs ay all
Click to expand...

Dave, to some extent I agree with you. There are many instances when great care should be taken when going into the balls. People who have never seen me play probably think, from my posts, that I play like a loon. I don't just blindly whack at the balls every chance I get, nor would I ever advocate that. And I almost never hit secondary breakshots hard.

There are many break shots which demand a soft hit, and I think a player's game truly develops when he can discern which speed will match which breakshot. Players that adjust their "rules" for the game, depending on the situation, are the ones that scare me. Anyone always breaking soft or always breaking hard isn't going to last very long against a good player.

- Steve
 
i agree. some should be harder than others. i play a very controlled game. i know where the ball is going , where im bumping balls, how im comming off that bump and what my next shot is

knowing insurance balls is key here also

another key to great players is thier ability to play for the middle of the table and also give themselves multiple shots at the same time

i guess it depends on the break shot. how im striking the cueball and how im hitting the rack.

thats the beatuy of pool there are so many variables
 
Steve Lipsky said:
Bob, Gerry, and Mosconiac,

You three seem to advocate a soft approach to this shot, so I was wondering if any of you have the ability to set this one up and youtube it for us? ...
Click to expand...
Sorry, no youtube, but I did spend about 15 minutes with the shot this weekend.

The answer is that if you play with soft follow, the result depends critically on the position of the break ball. If it is a quarter-inch one way or the other, the result will be totally different. If you land on the edge of the 3 in the diagram, the cue ball takes more or less the path of a standard one pocket break -- end rail, side rail -- and then goes to about the side pocket. When I got this hit, the rack was always open enough to continue. There seemed to be no chance at all of a scratch, except maybe in the side pocket after two cushions and at a very shallow angle.

However, if the rack is moved up just a little, the cue ball lands full on the 13 and usually sticks. Sometimes a shot is available but not usually.

My conclusion is that if you are going to roll the ball in with follow on this shot, you better know that you are going to hit the lower side of a ball so you can exit on two cushions.

My original plan of just rolling down to the foot rail for a secondary break does not work because for this exact position, the cue ball has too much speed.
 
Bob Jewett said:
Sorry, no youtube, but I did spend about 15 minutes with the shot this weekend.

The answer is that if you play with soft follow, the result depends critically on the position of the break ball. If it is a quarter-inch one way or the other, the result will be totally different. If you land on the edge of the 3 in the diagram, the cue ball takes more or less the path of a standard one pocket break -- end rail, side rail -- and then goes to about the side pocket. When I got this hit, the rack was always open enough to continue. There seemed to be no chance at all of a scratch, except maybe in the side pocket after two cushions and at a very shallow angle.

However, if the rack is moved up just a little, the cue ball lands full on the 13 and usually sticks. Sometimes a shot is available but not usually.

My conclusion is that if you are going to roll the ball in with follow on this shot, you better know that you are going to hit the lower side of a ball so you can exit on two cushions.

My original plan of just rolling down to the foot rail for a secondary break does not work because for this exact position, the cue ball has too much speed.
Click to expand...

Great analysis Bob, thanks. As with all break shots, I guess, moving the object ball just slightly in any direction seems to change almost everything. Therefore, it's always difficult to discuss these things in terms of absolutes.

I tried it a few times myself, and since I was doing it completely from memory, I just placed the 8 in such a position where I knew I could roll down to the end cushion. The first time, I got safe, with no legitimate shot. Another time, I had a few shots but no legitimate way to continue the run after that. The third time, I could have negotiated my way to opening the rack.

Of course, my analysis done from memory of the positions is fairly meaningless. But I guess my conclusion is that given a break angle as wide as this, there's no way I'm going to trust to luck on a secondary break shot behind the rack.

- Steve
 
i gues thats why the great players play for the middle of the table. giver the most options fo another shot

rolling to the end rail is bad be a) the speed is hard and b) odds are your gonna have balls in the way. you can have a good idea of what balls will do out of the pack but never exact

you guys got me itching to play straight again. hard game around here. we had a handicapped league. i was the highest rated player but races were only to 100. i ran 58 my first match in years. ended up like 9-1 but i got the shaft.

i had a player forfit and i only got 50 pts and that hurt my total score. only ended up with like 942 pts in 10 matches....
 
Well, this may be humbling…but I’m willing to share my video. I tried the shot a number of ways to see how each combination of speed, english, and spin would affect the quality of the break.

I forgot to try Blackjack’s draw shot…sorry!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwNISCMfjD8

Attempt#1: I tried Bob Jewett’s idea…firm speed with moderate spin & a little inside english. The CB missed the “gap” in the stack so this worked very well! I undercut the ball, which is my tendency for this type of shot.

Attempt#2: Repeated attempt#1 with medium speed. The CB avoided the “gap” in the stack so this worked fairly well too, but I don’t like the CB position. I undercut the ball again…I’m surprised I avoided the “gap”.

Attempt#3: I repeated attempt#2 with less spin. This worked OK although the CB hit the “gap” in the stack. I undercut the ball again and was lucky the 9 ball came into view. I would not use this combination in play due to my tendency to undercut the ball.

Attempt#4: I repeated attempt#3 without the inside english to help me NOT undercut the OB this time. I caught center pocket and this break worked fairly well. The CB hit the “gap” in the stack but the balls separated and I got a shot. Although it worked this time, I reached the same conclusion as in attempt#3…I should not use medium speed with less than 1-1/2 tips of top spin.

Attempt#5: repeated attempt#4 with more spin & a little outside english (to force myself into a thinner cut on the OB). I wanted to see what happens when I overcut the pocket, but I overdid it and missed. Miraculously I still hit the “gap”! I must have let up on the top?!!?

My conclusion is that going "forward" (toward the end rail) in this situation takes on some risk. I am unsure if this risk is any more than would be experienced with draw, but that can be determined with a little more experimentation.

My choice in the future will be to stroke this type of shot (where the tangent takes the CB into the "gap") firmly with at least 1-1/2 tips of top spin and a 1/2 tip of inside to mimic what Bob Jewett suggests (bring the CB two rails out to the center of the table).

If I fail to stroke the shot, I will end up hitting the gap and will be relying on luck to end up with a shot.

Your results may vary as you may not tend to undercut this shot like I do.
 
Last edited:
mosconiac said:
Well, this may be humbling?but I?m willing to share my video. I tried the shot a number of ways to see how each combination of speed, english, and spin would affect the quality of the break.

I forgot to try Blackjack?s draw shot?sorry!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwNISCMfjD8

Attempt#1: I tried Bob Jewett?s idea?firm speed with moderate spin & a little inside english. The CB missed the ?gap? in the stack so this worked very well! I undercut the ball, which is my tendency for this type of shot.

Attempt#2: Repeated attempt#1 with medium speed. The CB avoided the ?gap? in the stack so this worked fairly well too, but I don?t like the CB position. I undercut the ball again?I?m surprised I avoided the ?gap?.

Attempt#3: I repeated attempt#2 with less spin. This worked OK although the CB hit the ?gap? in the stack. I undercut the ball again and was lucky the 9 ball came into view. I would not use this combination in play due to my tendency to undercut the ball.

Attempt#4: I repeated attempt#3 without the inside english to help me NOT undercut the OB this time. I caught center pocket and this break worked fairly well. The CB hit the ?gap? in the stack but the balls separated and I got a shot. Although it worked this time, I reached the same conclusion as in attempt#3?I should not use medium speed with less than 1-1/2 tips of top spin.

Attempt#5: repeated attempt#4 with more spin & a little outside english (to force myself into a thinner cut on the OB). I wanted to see what happens when I overcut the pocket, but I overdid it and missed. Miraculously I still hit the ?gap?! I must have let up on the top?!!?

My conclusion is that going "forward" (toward the end rail) in this situation takes on some risk. I am unsure if this risk is any more than would be experienced with draw, but that can be determined with a little more experimentation.

My choice in the future will be to stroke this type of shot (where the tangent takes the CB into the "gap") firmly with at least 1-1/2 tips of top spin and a 1/2 tip of inside to mimic what Bob Jewett suggests (bring the CB two rails out to the center of the table).

If I fail to stroke the shot, I will end up hitting the gap and will be relying on luck to end up with a shot.

Your results may vary as you may not tend to undercut this shot like I do.
Click to expand...

Great video! Try the draw shot that I diagrammed and let me know how that worked. If you watch, you kept getting stuck to the pack because you were sending the cue ball into the gap between the balls. That is why I liked drawing this shot and hitting it firm.

I like these angled shots because you get good ball dispersement, as is evident by your first two attempts.
 
David,
Why wouldn't you go for the rack on this shot? It seems to be almost an ideal keyball shot to bust the hell out of that rack and get to work?
Just draw it into the rack, HARD.

Reword the description of draw, closer to a ball busting stop shot.
 
Last edited:
PROG8R said:
David,
Why wouldn't you go for the rack on this shot? It seems to be almost an ideal keyball shot to bust the hell out of that rack and get to work?
Just draw it into the rack, HARD.

Reword the description of draw, closer to a ball busting stop shot.
Click to expand...


The more you play straight pool, the more you learn that finesse will always win out over power. Drawing powerfully into the stack does spread the balls, but in this situation it's really not necessary. I have seen some guys hit the stack so hard that they knock all of the balls away from the rack area, leaving very few options for a break ball. Knowing how to work balls out of the stack is a vital to learning how to play this game. I'm not scared to tap a few out on the break ball, and then go to work with secondary break balls. It's a much more controlled way to play - and it believe it or not, you will be more successful with that. A lot of the younger players like to smash the $hit out the stack carelessly, and usually that carelessness will leak into other areas of their game as well. In this shot, I know the cue ball is going into the stack, and all I have to do is make the shot and control the cue ball.
 
Blackjack said:
players like to smash the $hit out the stack carelessly, and usually that carelessness will leak into other areas of their game as well. In this shot, I know the cue ball is going into the stack, and all I have to do is make the shot and control the cue ball.
Click to expand...

Hey!! :D

Why yes it does as a matter of fact. I take pride in losing quite a few matches that way. LOL
But, I put up some awesome outs when it works. That is what keeps pool fun to me. Long drawn out safety battles absolutely kill me!! Even if it means I am going to lose, I will still try to pull it off instead of playing another safety. I am only good for methodical for a few shots then I am back in the wild-wild west. Patience is something I have with my son, everywhere else I like to just go for it.
 
PROG8R said:
Hey!! :D

Why yes it does as a matter of fact. I take pride in losing quite a few matches that way. LOL
But, I put up some awesome outs when it works. That is what keeps pool fun to me. Long drawn out safety battles absolutely kill me!! Even if it means I am going to lose, I will still try to pull it off instead of playing another safety. I am only good for methodical for a few shots then I am back in the wild-wild west. Patience is something I have with my son, everywhere else I like to just go for it.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying to play methodically and painfully slow; I am saying that I don't need to smash the balls here... as long as none of the balls are touching each other, I'll be happy - I just don't need to splatter them all over the table. I want to keep them down near the rack area, but separate them from each other so that I can pocket them... I hope that is a clearer explanation.
 
Blackjack said:
I'm not saying to play methodically and painfully slow; I am saying that I don't need to smash the balls here... as long as none of the balls are touching each other, I'll be happy - I just don't need to splatter them all over the table. I want to keep them down near the rack area, but separate them from each other so that I can pocket them... I hope that is a clearer explanation.
Click to expand...

It is just painfully clear to me that I need to play with you for a bit. I can see that I am in desperate need of a little management assistance.
 
everyone seems to have good knowledge. good rep for all

some ppl play certin shots stronger. my friend nick hits every shot low. even when he follows

i agree finess wins over banging... in this case :D :eek: :D :eek: :rolleyes:
 
I was messing around with a guy once and he had a shot similar to this one. He had an interesting spin on it though. He jumped the cue ball into the key ball, and the cue landed in the center of the pack and spread them up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top