lol... none taken. I most certainly was a pool room rat in my late teens and early 20's. I've been lucky that I managed to retain a decent amount of my hard knocks as a young adult.
Why does it have to be a choice? I can learn things "scientifically" and learn from experience - and the things I learn from experience I learn better and more deeply because of the "science" I know. Don't know why you can't do that - your loss.
What I meant was. If I had to choose, I would opt to take that "research" time and apply it to practical learning. Obviously I embrace the theory as well or I wouldn't bother with the discourse here on AZB. My issue with some of it, (theory that is) is that it conflicts with what I have experienced. That's no one else's problem of course.
Why would anybody have to choose between learning how things work and practicing them?
Obviously...
Feel free to start another thread in the main forum and ask again
Stun shot
Not on that shot. a medium stroke center ball will be rolling by the time it hits the object ball. No one is saying dink it it's just that with that much angle a scratch is out of the question and low ball strikes lead to rattled balls on slight misses way more often than a rolling cue ball because you have to hit them harder.Poorly aiming a shot doesn't equate to you going about the thought process wrong. You just missed. It happens... You could miss it three more time in a row, and I'd still say you played it right
That said, if CJ wandered in here he'd tell you to hit it with inside and twist something or other....
Rolling the ball requires a light stroke. Everyone other than the 14.1 crowd will tell you to let your stroke out when you can...lol.
Whatever you want to call it. Just saying using a stop shot is asking for trouble if the 9 makes any contact at all with the left rail on the way in even right at the point it's rattle city. At least on my diamond with dirty cloth. The speed required to stop the cue ball exceeds the speed at which the pocket is most forgiving. Three speed just shoot it in and let the cue ball die on the side rail or roll to the end rail if you hit it too high.
Enough angle that properly aimed at the right pocket facing the chance of a follow scratch is zero.
I completely agree, and I wouldn't hit a stop shot either. I don't want to incite more vitriol from Patrick so I won't go any further than to say I personally don't like the idea of taking a shot wherein the CB is merely rolling at point of contact. That said, I do it all the time, especially when playing 14.1. However those are situations for when it's called for.
Drum roll please. The correct answer finally appears.
You're contradicting yourself here. A dead center stun shot at that distance has to be hit firmer than 'firm enough to make it.' I think you may be either making a few assumptions about what the pro really meant, or that pro isn't a pro at all. No pro in their right mind would hit that shot as game ball that hard.
Which is exactly what a kill shot accomplishes with the added bonus of a full stroke by the shooter (a non-dog stroke) and the cb going nowhere. (I'll tell ya --- you guys are stubborn.
)
You seem to be talking about the cue ball arriving at the object ball with no follow or draw. Is that right?Which is exactly what a kill shot accomplishes with the added bonus of a full stroke by the shooter (a non-dog stroke) and the cb going nowhere. (I'll tell ya --- you guys are stubborn.
Doesn't matter --- if the hit is soft as with a kill shot. By the way, I've shared my definition of the kill shot at least 3 times here. Obviously you didn't read them which is precisely my point about the scientific community rejecting without trying to understand.