Just some shots

D

duckie

GregH
Silver Member
 
Last edited:
What room are you in? Looks like a nice room.

That phone takes some pretty decent video. How long a clip can you record?

That's a pretty efficient stroke you have.

thanks for sharing
 
Greg,

You need to use that phone for live streams! :thumbup: Were you talking about the two and three ball not throwing from the right middle spin?

BTW, did I notice a pivot on the one ball? J/K Thanks for the video.

Best,
Mike
 
Few More

Just a few more. Maybe I'll do some combos and caroms next.

I can have unlimited recording or I can set the limit. I have three movies that total 4.2 GB, plus all these videos I've posted at about 5 meg each and then some pic's. I still have 3.25 GB of storage left.

That place is 10 min from me. It is a real Pop and Mom type of place, meaning Mom and Pop and some of the kids work there. Also, they have 6 heated 3 cushion tables.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKbtwAkM4-0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQqYpavtW4Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C26wSCKev6Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14wocGSQsYE


Oh, the 2,3 in the side. Well, its hard to see in the video, but those are not straight in shots. The natural angle takes the balls down table towards the side rail. The inside english holds up the CB from going in that direction. When the video is played frame at frame before and then after impact, I think you can see how the CB goes to the right. Then again, I might have just blinked at the wrong time.
 
Last edited:
Bumping this to show that you do not have to be chin rubbing low in order to make shots and control the cb.

I believe being chin rubbing low is too restrictive for a free, flowing stroke. It also is not a stance that truely allows one to be relaxed most the time.
 
What is the name of the pool hall you are playing at?
Near Milpitas, CA?

I'm north a bit, but would love to come play there some.

Thanks
 
Neil said:
Do you understand why the inside seems to hold up the cb??
Click to expand...

I do or at least I think I do, but not sure if I can accurately explain it.

I think that the rate of the spin I put on the CB and the angle of the spin on the CB plays a big factor. The spin prevented the CB from going on the natural line for that shot and the momentum kept the CB going forward but on a unnatural line. Sorta a stun type shot.

Thats the best I can do. Probably way off but hey, I gave it a shot.

This is one of those thing I see in my head, but can't put totally into to words.

I actually changed my stroke a little after seeing these videos. Slowed it down little and keeping the cue more level.
 
Neil said:
What I am sure is happening is this- putting a lot of right on the cb, the cb will squirt to the left before it starts going forward. The harder the hit, the more squirt. This causes the not straight in shot to be very near straight in due to the cb's new path. The english has essentially no effect on the ob due to the speed, and the cb stays right near the ob because of the almost straight on hit.

So, essentially, it sounds like you are right in what you thought was happening.

There is also a trick shot similar to this, where you have to put a lot of spin on the ball, make the ob, and leave the cb spinning in place.

The more squirt your cue has, the easier this shot is.
Click to expand...

What Neil said...

How the spin effects the shot has nothing or almost nothing to do with the contact of the CB and OB. It's all about how it changes the path of the CB.
 
5aheadforpinks said:
What is the name of the pool hall you are playing at?
Near Milpitas, CA?

I'm north a bit, but would love to come play there some.

Thanks
Click to expand...

Its called Edgies in Milpitas. They got weekly tournaments on tuesday and wednesday nights that start at 8. Its a nice room
 
This thread's purpose has finally revealed itself

duckie said:
Bumping this to show that you do not have to be chin rubbing low in order to make shots and control the cb.

I believe being chin rubbing low is too restrictive for a free, flowing stroke. It also is not a stance that truely allows one to be relaxed most the time.
Click to expand...

Ah, *now* we see the purpose of this thread. I'd been watching these videos when he posts them, scratching my head, thinking to myself, "What's going on here? These are elementary shots. Short distances to boot. Nothing special. The camera's focus is strictly on the table, and not on the shooter (so no "form" instructional value there). I don't get it." But I'd been staying quiet, patiently monitoring this thread's progress, thinking I was just missing something, or that the thread's value would soon become apparent.

However, this post above clears it up nicely. This thread is merely a rail against low stances, or fundamentals that utilize "down low" head/eye positioning over the cue (i.e. the "chin on the cue" references). Probably some "worth acknowledgment" self-service thrown in there as well as far as the OP's high stance goes.

What the OP doesn't realize is that the human body adapts, and what at first seems unnatural or restricted when it comes to muscle form and function, becomes natural and unrestricted with just a bit of practice. I imagine the OP must've been occasionally trying a head-down-low stance (but not enough time to truly study it and master it), didn't have much luck with the first couple of times he tried it, then one day decided that just because a high stance works better at that moment in his pool-playing experience, that he should universally rail against the head-down-low stances.

It's a shame, too. For if he truly watched a good player that utilizes a head-down-low stance, he'd see that the player's cue delivery is smooth and completely unrestricted. I know that when I'm in my stance, my arm "back there" feels like it's on roller skates pendulum-wise, but I have the benefit of body components placed in a position to lock it on the shot line. My stroke is just as unrestricted as it would be if I were "up high" like Rudolph Wanderone. My body adapted to the head-down-low stance, as is the nature of the human body to do so. I am completely at ease and relaxed. Unless the player has some physical limitations that prevent him/her from getting down low (e.g. bad lower back), anyone can master it and "make it his/hers" with just some focused practice, even if it doesn't "feel right" at first. There is a such thing as muscle memory -- muscles adapt, even to something that at first feels uncomfortable or restrictive, henceforth becoming natural and relaxed.

But the point is, you don't rail against something that other players -- including most professional ones -- utilize. You don't see many Minnesota Fats-style pros today for a reason. If I were the OP, I'd adopt an open mind and investigate why a down-low stance works. What makes it the choice of most professional players, instead of thinking that one's initial comfort zone is the "be all, tell all." Or, if a high stance works for the OP, great! But what works for the OP, isn't a "be all, tell all" for "all people."

Just some food for thought,
-Sean
 
Last edited:
sfleinen said:
Ah, *now* we see the purpose of this thread. I'd been watching these videos when he posts them, scratching my head, thinking to myself, "What's going on here? These are elementary shots. Short distances to boot. Nothing special. The camera's focus is strictly on the table, and not on the shooter (so no "form" instructional value there). I don't get it." But I'd been staying quiet, patiently monitoring this thread's progress, thinking I was just missing something, or that the thread's value would soon become apparent.

However, this post above clears it up nicely. This thread is merely a rail against low stances, or fundamentals that utilize "down low" head/eye positioning over the cue (i.e. the "chin on the cue" references). Probably some "worth acknowledgment" self-service thrown in there as well as far as the OP's high stance goes.

What the OP doesn't realize is that the human body adapts, and what at first seems unnatural or restricted when it comes to muscle form and function, becomes natural and unrestricted with just a bit of practice. I imagine the OP must've been occasionally trying a head-down-low stance (but not enough time to truly study it and master it), didn't have much luck with the first couple of times he tried it, then one day decided that just because a high stance works better at that moment in his pool-playing experience, that he should universally rail against the head-down-low stances.

It's a shame, too. For if he truly watched a good player that utilizes a head-down-low stance, he'd see that the player's cue delivery is smooth and completely unrestricted. I know that when I'm in my stance, my arm "back there" feels like it's on roller skates pendulum-wise, but I have the benefit of body components placed in a position to lock it on the shot line. My stroke is just as unrestricted as it would be if I were "up high" like Rudolph Wanderone. My body adapted to the head-down-low stance, as is the nature of the human body to do so. I am completely at ease and relaxed. Unless the player has some physical limitations that prevent him/her from getting down low (e.g. bad lower back), anyone can master it and "make it his/hers" with just some focused practice, even if it doesn't "feel right" at first. There is a such thing as muscle memory -- muscles adapt, even to something that at first feels uncomfortable or restrictive, henceforth becoming natural and relaxed.

But the point is, you don't rail against something that other players -- including most professional ones -- utilize. You don't see many Minnesota Fats-style pros today for a reason. If I were the OP, I'd adopt an open mind and investigate why a down-low stance works. What makes it the choice of most professional players, instead of thinking that one's initial comfort zone is the "be all, tell all." Or, if a high stance works for the OP, great! But what works for the OP, isn't a "be all, tell all" for "all people."

Just some food for thought,
-Sean
Click to expand...

You sure read alot into things. I'm just giving another view point about stances and as you pointed, what works for me may not work for others, that's all this thread is really about. You can get a idea about where my head is in a few shots.

But a low stances sure seems to be thought of as the "right" way to do things.

I could care less why a low stance works for others. I'm only concern with works for me and that is the same attitude everyone needs to have....what works for me.

You made alot of false assumptions about me and my pool experinces but those that feel the need to seem always in the know do this.

So, if a high stance is good enough for these two, it's good enough for me.

Ray Martin http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8294808311951707336

Willie Mosconi http://vimeo.com/4957545

But hey, I never have watched any really good players.

Nor do I understand how the body works. I mean just because I've had several injuries over the years, a couple that did require me to have to relearn how to bridge, stand and stroke, what can that matter.

Of course the body adapts, duh.

I know my body better than you do and how it works better than you do. I've lived with it for 57 years, so yeah I know how my body works and the human body overall.

See, your post is a prime example of being closed mind. If your were truly opened minded, you wouldn't have posted what you did the way you did.
You even tried to imply there is more to my post than what I said. People like you make drama where there is none.

Your two assumptions just make you look like a ass.
 
duckie said:
You sure read alot into things. I'm just giving another view point about stances and as you pointed, what works for me may not work for others, that's all this thread is really about. You can get a idea about where my head is in a few shots.

But a low stances sure seems to be thought of as the "right" way to do things.

I could care less why a low stance works for others. I'm only concern with works for me and that is the same attitude everyone needs to have....what works for me.

You made alot of false assumptions about me and my pool experinces but those that feel the need to seem always in the know do this.

So, if a high stance is good enough for these two, it's good enough for me.

Ray Martin http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8294808311951707336

Willie Mosconi http://vimeo.com/4957545

But hey, I never have watched any really good players.

Nor do I understand how the body works. I mean just because I've had several injuries over the years, a couple that did require me to have to relearn how to bridge, stand and stroke, what can that matter.

Of course the body adapts, duh.

I know my body better than you do and how it works better than you do. I've lived with it for 57 years, so yeah I know how my body works and the human body overall.

See, your post is a prime example of being closed mind. If your were truly opened minded, you wouldn't have posted what you did the way you did.
You even tried to imply there is more to my post than what I said. People like you make drama where there is none.

Your two assumptions just make you look like a ass.
Click to expand...

duckie:

I'm not going to get into name calling. You can if you like, but I won't respond to those.

Funny thing that you should try to turn the "need to be open-minded" thing back on me. What I did attempt to do, is to point out another post by you where you knock or try to discredit a well-established technique or methodology, without any kind of proof or explanation, other than because you tell us it is so. I mean come on, you *do* have a history of this, do you not? E.g. alternative aiming techniques (CTE, et al.), foisting Babe Cranfield's arrow as "the" aiming panacea, etc. At least I openly acknowledge the existence and effectiveness of these alternative techniques. Your posting history shows you do not (and that's not an "assumption"). I don't know, but that seems to me to be a good example of the flaw in your open-mindedness argument.

But who am I, except merely a person who just disagrees with the authoritarian position you take on certain topics just because "you say it is so"?

I will say this, and that is yes, I did make some assumptions based on what I think is posting history. Could I have made an incorrect one? Sure, and for that I apologize. Could anyone else have made the same assumptions based on "what they've previously seen posted from you"? You bet.

-Sean
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top