I'm a fool/revelations

[Tin Man]

John wasn’t zipping the cue ball around no doubt, but he didn’t run those balls in rotation either, and I’m sure he used small traces of spin on many of those shots.

It’s like the old legend about the guy running 100 balls without hitting a rail. Where did this start? Of course you want to keep things simple and avoid unnecessary movement, but the rails are there to be used. Coming towards the line of the shot, killing cue ball speed, etc. Sidespin is the same. It’s a tool that should not be over or under used.

 

[Imac007]

Your thinking isn’t wrong, don’t beat yourself up

so I'm shooting around and then, it hits me-
center ball means vertical axis!

I'm not joking when I say I thought playing "center ball" literally meant playing
the center of the cue ball.
can you believe i man, some days you just wake up

Don’t beat yourself up. Your instincts led you there and they were right. It’s about simplification and constraint. A Russian neuroscientist, Nikolai Bernstein, wrote about developing motor skills. He identified what is known as the "degrees of freedom" problem. Simply put it is about how magnificent our bodies are. When we go to do something requiring motor movement the flexibility and movement variability possible is huge. We can execute a million different ways. Problem is each way interferes with other ways. We need to choose, one way. That means constraining other ways. By simplifying the idea of controlling a single white ball, we get to the idea of center ball and center ball axis.

That is beginners mode. The next step is more advanced, adding a second ball to control. This adds a new dimension, controlling a second ball. The constrained version of that using the center ball model was called ghost ball. Most early pool games, straight pool and 8 ball, were played initially on 8 foot tables. Nearly every shot was a short shot, within half a table, and the pockets were big enough, so issues like throw were unlikely to cause a miss. In simple terms, center ball with ghost ball aiming worked for beginners within the constraints chosen.

With the increase in popularity of rotation games, the context has changed. Tables of 9 foot length plus longer shots with more complex dynamics for getting position on the next ball have thrown both constraints, center ball and ghost ball, in those games on bigger tables, into question. This is no longer a beginner topic, the training wheels must come off to get to another level. That said, never throw out what works and what you already know. Also know your limitations and the limits of your methods.

Try an experiment. Put a ball in the dead center of the table. Put a cue ball on the racking spot. Using only center ball, aim to hit the ball at table center, straight on. Shoot the shot 10 times directly up the table and back to the cue ball. Did it come back directly and hit the cue ball fully, or at all. How many out of 10 were successful? The point is that that model of perfection doesn’t pass the test of reality. The unpredictability is a problem.

Even if the misses all follow a pattern of predictability, have you allowed for the mishit in your aiming and expectation model? The likely reasons for mishits are, misalignment or a problem with cueing straightness. And, this is on a straight shot of exactly the same distance, exactly the same pace with multiple tries. These are "do overs" that life at the table doesn’t give. If you can’t succeed here, using this set of constraints, is it you or could it be a problem partly created by the beginner constraints? I’m suggesting the issue isn’t with center ball or ghost ball aiming, it’s caused by the combination.

It has been perpetuated because it is easy to teach. It also works, within limits, in short shot games. It’s also a trap when they become the criteria used to evaluate results. You blame yourself for the miss when impossible constraints set you up to fail.

If you want my answer to how to move beyond the beginner constraints you can PM me. There will be no end of posters willing to vilify the blasphemy of questioning the holy cows on which pool doctrine has been built.

My improvement progression strategy revolves around introducing a consistent method to build on what you know. That involves making ghost ball work, on more than just short shots, and using straight cueing methods ingrained in your beginner model to make it possible and gain positional control.

 

[Tooler]

John wasn’t zipping the cue ball around no doubt, but he didn’t run those balls in rotation either, and I’m sure he used small traces of spin on many of those shots.

It’s like the old legend about the guy running 100 balls without hitting a rail. Where did this start? Of course you want to keep things simple and avoid unnecessary movement, but the rails are there to be used. Coming towards the line of the shot, killing cue ball speed, etc. Sidespin is the same. It’s a tool that should not be over or under used.

Buddy Hall was a good example of not over using spin.

1/8 " off center max, I remember him saying this countless times. Nick Varner was another who dislikes excess sidespin.

Wu is another.

 

[Cornerman]

Buddy Hall was a good example of not over using spin.

1/8 " off center max, I remember him saying this countless times. Nick Varner was another who dislikes excess sidespin.

Wu is another.

My observation over many matches is at odds with this statement. Not ironically, it was Buddy who I observed that used more english than any human I had ever seen before. And Buddy even explained on one of his youtube-rebroadcast wins where he explains that you have to understand and use the whole cueball. Buddy is the proponent of the Clock System and the use of Tuck and Roll. I just don’t see why people keep using Buddy as the example when he’s the perfect example of the extreme use of english.

Nick Varner also is someone who goes to the extreme. Simple ringside observation can prove this to anyone with eyes. And Wu??? Of all the Taiwanese players, Wu puts more spin than all of them. And JLChang isn’f far behind. Their pattern play must fool people or something.

Freddie <~~~ wondering what people are looking at

 

[ShootingArts]

no disagreement

John wasn’t zipping the cue ball around no doubt, but he didn’t run those balls in rotation either, and I’m sure he used small traces of spin on many of those shots.

It’s like the old legend about the guy running 100 balls without hitting a rail. Where did this start? Of course you want to keep things simple and avoid unnecessary movement, but the rails are there to be used. Coming towards the line of the shot, killing cue ball speed, etc. Sidespin is the same. It’s a tool that should not be over or under used.

I agree, "small traces of spin". Small traces of spin on short shots aren't what get most players in trouble. It is large amounts of spin when the shot is at least moderately difficult. A long shot when the object ball is eight feet away and has to be cut into a pocket another eighteen inches away at 45 to 60 degree angle might be a good example. A person might make that shot with very little side most of the time. Add a tip and a half of side to move the cue ball around and now we are adjusting for squirt and swerve. The odds of a miss go way up. Shots similar to this end many a run for pro's. The same shot with a tip of high or low to carry it to the next ball has a much better chance of success.

A special situation, one pocket, might see me using a good bit of side. However the shots and the shape are both very short. The last time I ran eight and out I never got as far up table as the side pockets. Side is easy to control on a 3'x3' playing field. It is usually substantial side and substantial distance that do in a player one way or another. A miss, or badly missed shape.

I do agree about side spin being a tool and there to be used. Practicing alone I was using it to take balls frozen on the rail. A lot of low and some inside and I was curving the cue ball to get a better angle hitting the object ball on a snooker table. I didn't need to and wouldn't have in a game with someone else but I had to do it the first time and afterwards I kept doing it just because it was fun. When the chips are down though the KISS rule comes into play and I won't use those higher risk shots.

It's an old point of discussion, I think as a general statement that today's players don't play shape as well as they could and use side spin to get them out of spots they never should have been in. Watching video I see even pro's play three or four rails for shape spinning the cue ball through a lot of traffic with side spin when they could have gotten the same shape or better with a much softer shot and a little follow. They are accustomed to using the rails and a lot of cue ball travel and sometimes fail to consider simpler options. Even the best misjudge and hit balls unintentionally doing that. I advocate a much more low risk game.

Hu

 

[Cornerman]

Different strokes for different folks and I never mind other people doing things the hard way! I haven't and won't watch john's 626 but I'll make book that he didn't get there using a lot of side spin and the ball zinging around the table most shots.

Hu

John Schmidt uses more english than any other 14.1 player on average. Surely you've seen his other high runs. Does he "zing it around the table most shots"? Of course not, but he uses english on shots even when the cueball isn't going to a rail. And we're not talking "traces" of english.

I think you need to watch.

 

[ShootingArts]

I have

John Schmidt uses more english than any other 14.1 player on average. Surely you've seen his other high runs. Does he "zing it around the table most shots"? Of course not, but he uses english on shots even when the cueball isn't going to a rail. And we're not talking "traces" of english.

I think you need to watch.

I have watched john. As mentioned, I bought his original 247 tape. I have watched him on youtube too even fairly recently. When it comes to watching what was just one more practice run until it went past five hundred, I would rather watch paint dry. john's style isn't enough different from mine for it to be fun to watch. I'd much rather watch somebody doing something a bit different and preferably in competition.

With good quality video and interesting play I am most likely to be watching snooker matches these days. Ronnie's 146 was a deliberate and funny poke in the eye at the organizers of an event. They only put up ten-thousand pounds or euros to run 147 when it seems twenty-five thousand is the common amount. It would be nice if US players could turn their noses up at twelve thousand dollars or so.

Hu

 

[evergruven]

I love english..watching it, using it
it's what I've naturally gravitated toward, in the time that I've grown to really love pool
many of my favorite players hit the extra rail, and are fancy with the cue ball
I think having good command of english, and knowing how balls are going to react
when it's applied can be very advantageous at all levels
that's why vertical axis play has been such an epiphany for me,
cuz for me, it's a new way of doing things..or another way to put it
(because I'm familiar with draw and follow, and to a lesser extent, stun)
using vertical axis play to get shape
is a new way of doing old things

I'd said that I think english is necessary, because sometimes, it is- no doubt.
but I have seen other threads where people pick sides (punny?)
I don't think it's gotta be that way
the goal, and the equipment is the same
to take it a step further, it seems like different styles of play
and I think it is, somewhat
but it also appears to be a matter of proficiency
having different tools in the box
and knowing how to use them

I seen a quote on here awhile back (pj maybe?)
that said something like
"you want to be able to hit all shots, in all ways"
depending on what the shot actually is, this might be tough
but
I really dig the idea.
and I think that's a good goal "to shoot for"

That was only in reply to the OP who said you couldn't. Technically it is possible with good speed control. Ralf Souquet comes to mind, he uses predominantly natural angle lately I feel.

Julian

hi julian,
I agree that *technically* it's possible to run a rack using just center ball,
and sure, maybe some players are more comfortable staying closer to "home"
but what happens when a player (ultimately) gets out of line?
how do you get back?

 

[Scratch85]

This is hard to explain, due to the time involved in learning but, in my experience, because I studied (books, videos, better players) pool, I understood how to apply spin and some of the ways it affected shots, before I understood all the effects of spin. My game improved greatly when I figured out where the cue ball was going, using center axis. Only then, did I figure out how to apply spin in a mostly favorable way.

Too late to be brief, but in short, you have to understand positions with center ball before spin can be used at its most value.

Again, just my .02


Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums

 

[garczar]

Nothing wrong with spin "as needed". Problem is a lot of players have(put me on this list too) is using it when its not needed, especially on critical "cinch-the-damn-ball" shots. I've seen players so in love with spinnin' whitey that they miss tide-turning shots when a basic center axis shot will work fine.

 

[Straightpool_99]

I've made many, long posts about this subject before, so I'll be brief:
You need sidespin to play this (or any other cue game) at its highest level. If someone tells you otherwise, they're full of it. That includes snooker. Yes, you can run racks without sidespin, but not many enough to win tournaments of a high standard.

 

[tim913]

I used to do it a lot more but at least once a year I'll spend two or three weeks during my practice sessions using the vertical axis only, no side. It's hard to get back in line sometimes but it really improves your game

 

[Cornerman]

I used to do it a lot more but at least once a year I'll spend two or three weeks during my practice sessions using the vertical axis only, no side. It's hard to get back in line sometimes but it really improves your game

Great post. I definitely think adding vertical center ball practice helps the game.

Let’s add corollary statements:

It’s harder to stay in line if you only use center, vertical axis.

It is easier to stay in line if you understand and use English correctly on your shots.

When using English, optimize it’s use. There is no more silly thing to say than “use English only when it’s necessary.” Who are we trying to protect from the evils of English? Learn to use English and optimize how to use.

Here’s a brain burner. If people get over their distaste for the terms Center English, Draw English, etc., then the statement “optimize your use of English on every shot” makes more sense. But I digress...

 

[Seth C.]

I've made many, long posts about this subject before, so I'll be brief:
You need sidespin to play this (or any other cue game) at its highest level. If someone tells you otherwise, they're full of it. That includes snooker. Yes, you can run racks without sidespin, but not many enough to win tournaments of a high standard.

Further to this point, I took a lesson with Ray Martin earlier this summer (which was great). At the outset he asked me what I wanted to work on. Part of my answer was to say that I was interested in his thoughts on how much the game of straight pool should be played on the vertical axis. I not only inferred that I thought side largely could be avoided, but mentioned that I had heard that Bobby Hunter was playing the game basically without side.

Ray responded by saying that first of all, even if Hunter had said that, it’s not true. And second, that it is part of the game and you have to master it. Over the next two hours, as shot after shot presented itself, Ray frequently used the word “left” or “right” or “inside” or “outside” when describing what was called for.

But more than anything, he emphasized speed - often less of it. He surely opened my mind to the critical importance of refining one’s sense of speed as the pathway to getting better position.

I will add my own two cents - that using more than a touch of side makes landing on the target spot - and Ray was all about the need to plan to land on an exact spot rather than in an area (even a small area) - much more difficult when playing the CB with running English off a rail. For me, this is connected to the subconscious sense that in order to make the CB spin, I need to hit it somewhat hard. Maybe it is a shared, common problem - landing long more often than short when using spin.

Bottom line - it is tough to master, but if you want to be strong, you’ve got to work at it. But that means, among other things, figuring out how to temper the desire to use it. The problem for me, and no doubt many others, it that I am prone to using side “whenever possible,” despite knowing fron George Fels’ writings that it’s the other way around - it should be avoided “whenever possible.” I’m also prone to using a lot of it or none of it, rather than just gradations of it. Pool - always a work in progress.

 

[evergruven]

Great post. I definitely think adding vertical center ball practice helps the game.

Let’s add corollary statements:

It’s harder to stay in line if you only use center, vertical axis.

It is easier to stay in line if you understand and use English correctly on your shots.

When using English, optimize it’s use. There is no more silly thing to say than “use English only when it’s necessary.” Who are we trying to protect from the evils of English? Learn to use English and optimize how to use.

Here’s a brain burner. If people get over their distaste for the terms Center English, Draw English, etc., then the statement “optimize your use of English on every shot” makes more sense. But I digress...

agree completely

like I said before, being able to intelligently apply vertical axis play
is just more tools in the box , for anybody
as is being ably to intelligently apply "side,"
etc.

the connection between us, our cues,
our cues and the rock,
the rock and the object ball
is some heavy stuff man.

I'm not a fan of labels, in general
pool is free
war is over
if we want it

 

[BC21]

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. You all are giving away one of the simplest secrets for free! At least play $5 sets for this kind of info.


Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums

Lol. I agree! Supporting knowledgeable pool players in exchange for learning opportunities is always a good thing.

 

[Seth C.]

Great post. I definitely think adding vertical center ball practice helps the game.

Let’s add corollary statements:

It’s harder to stay in line if you only use center, vertical axis.

It is easier to stay in line if you understand and use English correctly on your shots.

When using English, optimize it’s use. There is no more silly thing to say than “use English only when it’s necessary.” Who are we trying to protect from the evils of English? Learn to use English and optimize how to use.

Here’s a brain burner. If people get over their distaste for the terms Center English, Draw English, etc., then the statement “optimize your use of English on every shot” makes more sense. But I digress...

This is well put, IMO.

I’ll add one additional point: there are times when playing a shot with side is simply easier than playing the alternative shot that employs a hit on the vertical axis (where both shots, when properly played, will bring the CB to the same ultimate destination). For example, if the OB is fairly close to a pocket - giving you a wide margin of error in the contact point - which means that the normal increase in pocketing difficulty associated with squirt is not present - a given shot using side may require only a comfortable, relatively soft stroke, whereas the alternative, vertical axis shot may require a much harder stoke. Especially if that harder stroke is a draw stroke, you have to be honest and ask: how good (and relatedly, how consistent) is my draw stroke?

So, the answer, at least during competition, is to play the higher percentage shot. This implicates comfort and confidence and the particulars of the shot (overall length, distance of OB from pocket, speed required to land CB on intended spot, etc.), and not just the broad, theoretical reasons why aim when using side is more complex than aim when using the vertical axis.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

There is no more silly thing to say than “use English only when it’s necessary.”

I agree with you about the necessity of english - in fact I think of centerball as just another point on the english spectrum. But I think that old advice has its place in pool wisdom, if only to remind us to make english a choice rather than a habit.

pj
chgo

 

[ShootingArts]

nice post!

Further to this point, I took a lesson with Ray Martin earlier this summer (which was great). At the outset he asked me what I wanted to work on. Part of my answer was to say that I was interested in his thoughts on how much the game of straight pool should be played on the vertical axis. I not only inferred that I thought side largely could be avoided, but mentioned that I had heard that Bobby Hunter was playing the game basically without side.

Ray responded by saying that first of all, even if Hunter had said that, it’s not true. And second, that it is part of the game and you have to master it. Over the next two hours, as shot after shot presented itself, Ray frequently used the word “left” or “right” or “inside” or “outside” when describing what was called for.

But more than anything, he emphasized speed - often less of it. He surely opened my mind to the critical importance of refining one’s sense of speed as the pathway to getting better position.

I will add my own two cents - that using more than a touch of side makes landing on the target spot - and Ray was all about the need to plan to land on an exact spot rather than in an area (even a small area) - much more difficult when playing the CB with running English off a rail. For me, this is connected to the subconscious sense that in order to make the CB spin, I need to hit it somewhat hard. Maybe it is a shared, common problem - landing long more often than short when using spin.

Bottom line - it is tough to master, but if you want to be strong, you’ve got to work at it. But that means, among other things, figuring out how to temper the desire to use it. The problem for me, and no doubt many others, it that I am prone to using side “whenever possible,” despite knowing fron George Fels’ writings that it’s the other way around - it should be avoided “whenever possible.” I’m also prone to using a lot of it or none of it, rather than just gradations of it. Pool - always a work in progress.

No surprise about Ray's thoughts, a true master. It isn't just one thing that makes rarely using lots of side possible but a big part of it is spot shape. I had been playing pool nightly for several years and I was playing area shape, or lane shape as I preferred to call it. I knew enough to come into this area from an angle that maximized my chances to stay in the lane I favored, I was good, a legend in my not yet twenty year old mind!!

Then one Sunday I happened to catch an old tape of Willie Mosconi playing a match as a young man. I was stunned. He was playing spot shape and he would come to that spot from any angle. A half inch difference in roll would have blown shape sometimes. I guess run time of the match might have been twenty minutes max and his opponent did get a couple minutes air time. All I remembered was Willie playing spot shape. It took me two to three years of nightly work to gain spot shape. If I had put the piece of paper a hole punch cut out to put pages in a notebook where I wanted to put the cue ball I would "shade it" with the cue ball when it stopped most of the time.

A simple question, how often would anyone use a lot of side if they got ball in hand after every shot? Spot shape is almost the same as getting ball in hand. The difference in playing angles for the next shot from the exact spot you wanted to be instead of somewhere in the area is so huge it is hard to find a fair comparison. Spot shape was almost a license to steal. It let me beat some very good road players.

A simple and obvious statement, the cue ball is the only one we get to hit directly. The more I focused on the cue ball the better things got. Balls falling in pockets were kind of incidental, if the cue ball did what I wanted the object ball had to fall. It annoyed me more to miss half the shot, pocketing the ball or spot shape, than missing the whole shot. Missing the whole shot might be a physical error, missing part of it meant my planning was wrong and the shot was doomed before I ever bent over the table!

Hu

 

[Scratch85]

”There is no more silly thing to say than “use English only when it’s necessary.”

IMO, the correct statement is, “use only the necessary English, when needed. “






Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums