Let's Talk Defensive Strategy

Re the up-table/leave 'em long strategy

BTW, I just checked Babe Cranfield's book and he stresses the up-table/leave 'em long strategy.

Tell us what page so someone can find out what you are referring to. Almost certainly he was not chancing to leave opponent a dead-shot. I just don't believe that a player as knowledgeable as "Babe" Cranfield would normally go for distance if there was much of a chance to leave a dead-shot. That was my point all along re why one should not leave distance on example provided in the thread. The situation was such as to where one could easily leave opponent a dead-shot. That was also the reason not to play safe off the corner ball at the far right. Have you not understood this point? If it wasn't for the possibility of leaving the dead shot I'd have been in favor of distance as well!!!

A bit frustrated here,

Eddie R
 
Just told that "Babe" did chance leaving dead-shot in his book

I was just told that on page 148 of "Babe" Cranfield's book he DID take a a big chance on leaving a dead-shot; two of them in fact. Seems that he knocked a corner ball out around four inches and that same ball could have been the last of a dead 4-ball combination had it rolled around 3/4 of an inch less distance AND he might have also left a different dead shot out of the rack in the same bottom right corner pocket had that same ball rolled another inch further.

I'm also told that he shows all balls fully undisturbed but the one ball that pops out of the opposite side; you try that and see if you can do that even three times in ten tries.

Amazing that the "Babe" would have made such an error in his book! I had very little trust in the works of others I've come across and this one was one of my biggest surprises yet for the "Babe" was a hell of a player.

I certainly hope I don't have to now go and make diagrams to show the two dead shots he almost left in his book.

Eddie Robin

 
Got "Babe's" book in hand & believe undertstand why the errors

Went out and got "Babe" Cranfield's book; got it in hand now as I'm writing this and believe I now undertstand why the errors. The "Babe" couldn't have done that diagram, at least not while he was in decent health and in his right mind. It was probably done by his friend and co-author, Lawrence S Moy.

I last talked with "Babe" Cranfield in 1996 or 1997 about being one of my six co-authors for the 14.1 book I was working on, and, from the way he talked, he must have still been functioning fairly well at the time.

Believe "Babe" was around 88 years old and near death when this book, "ESSENTIAL POOL" was done. Copyright page indicates 2002 but don't know when it actually went to print.

Just look at where the cueball winds up in his diagram on page 149. Do you think a top player would have gone off the very edge of the rack to leave his opponent a great distance from the balls knowing if he hit the ball just a tiny bit too soft he'll fail to hit the head rail and if he hits it just a tiny bit too hard he'll provide opponent with an easy shot? Especially when he had a far better option available to him? Nooooooo way would a lucid healthy "Babe" Cranfield have permitted that diagram in particular.

This reminds me of when I first got to Chicago in 1964 and I spoke to the guy who had worked on the Willie Hoppe book and asked him about the pages on the Corner-Five diamond system in that book. Hoppe knew absolutely nothing about that system until reading it in his own book! No wonder those pages were so poorly done as well. Many a great player's supposed work was actually done by second- or third-rate amateurs. A reader has to use his noodle a bit to recognize when such work couldn't have been done by a great player.

Another example of such nonsense had to do with how what would have been the most valuable page on stroke in the little red Mosconi book was changed because amateurs who edited that book were so sure Mosconi had made a mistake.

I can probably get back to sleep now that I've finally seen the two diagrams (numbered 88 and 89) on pages 148 and 149 re the leaving the opponent distance for a safety in 14.1.

for greater understanding in the great game of 14.1,

Eddie Robin

PS: Hope not to get nightmares re who will be screwing up my own work should I fail to publish the rest of my books before I'm gone.
 
Eddy - you may be right on what happened here.

On the other hand, I remember watching videos where e.g. a player would do something in a game of 1 pocket that Danny D. considered clearly the wrong choice. It wouldn't shock me if Babe just trusts his speed control to reposition that ball to an exact spot. I dunno, I'd have to see the diagrams in question but might this just be a situation where the shot 'feels' a lot different when you're down in front of it vs. seeing it in a diagram?
 
CreeDo said:
Eddy - you may be right on what happened here.

On the other hand, I remember watching videos where e.g. a player would do something in a game of 1 pocket that Danny D. considered clearly the wrong choice. It wouldn't shock me if Babe just trusts his speed control to reposition that ball to an exact spot. I dunno, I'd have to see the diagrams in question but might this just be a situation where the shot 'feels' a lot different when you're down in front of it vs. seeing it in a diagram?
Click to expand...

No doubts about the misleading error. And it is more than just a wrong choice; it is not even close to being the right thing to do. It is just too much to ask to send a cueball clear to the other end of the table and be confident of having it stop less than a ball-space from the head-cushion after hitting that cushion but even more difficult to accomplish that task when one must first glance off the side of the rack. Try it.

That shot would be risky even after a few practice attempts. And, he'll figure to leave what would be considered a fairly good shot for any opponent of his playing level if he had hit the ball any harder or even if the feat was accomplished and he did manage to leave the cueball less than a ball-space from the head cushion.

Any player the level of the "Babe" would have shown how to use distance in safety play by providing a situation in which one would hit another cushion on the way up to the head of the table. I discussed a few things with the guy and he was a logical thinker; he definitely should not be held responsible for such work.

I had a terrible situation with my first edition of Winning One-Pocket. I actually had to send that book to the printer before it was ready so I could show the book to a judge real quick; I was in danger of losing years of work from being sued over how long the book was taking me to complete. There were a great many errors in that first edition, far more than were shown on a few erratta sheets (despite the praise by those who were simply interested in selling their copies) but most had to do with a faulty conversion program at the printers.

Though, because of that same lawsuit, I had to rush the SM&S book as well, and though I did have a bit more time for getting that book in shape, I had to undergo the embarrassment of having things corrected by the plaintiff before I could actually finish the work on my own. However, my errors were not quite so glaring or of the nature of the one regarding this thread despite having to send books out at least a month before they could be fully completed.

I hope someone has learned from these replies for they are a bit time-consuming. Didn't realize what the consequences in time could be from getting this involved. Partially my own fault of course for going off on such a tangent.

for straighter shooting no matter the game at hand,

Eddie Robin
 
Strategy on open saftey shots.

Skin pack's back right ball and spin to the center of the back rail, freezing is best.
Force them to play a ball left. Next you play right again to but to the back of the pack. When you have the first option at balls on both sides of the pack locked up you will need alot of luck. That position is the advantage. This is when you may wish to take a scratch if it is put on you nice!
Basicly when they shut down one side of the table take away the other.
Shooting anything that allows them to do this to you will hurt.
Down table is sweet unless you are playing Irving Crane and left him near center. He would go 2 rails to the side then back and shim a front ball leaving the cue on the rail down table. He usually wasn't sitting for long after that move!
I learned this strategy from someone that used to use it on Babe and Irving. They wouldn't play him. For nothing.
BlackJack is that Bruiser on your avitar?
Nick :)
 
Last edited:
Skin pack's back right ball and spin to the center of the back rail, freezing is best.
Force them to play a ball left. Next you play right again to but to the back of the pack. When you have the first option at balls on both sides of the pack locked up you will need alot of luck. That position is the advantage. This is when you may wish to take a scratch if it is put on you nice!
Basicly when they shut down one side of the table take away the other.
Shooting anything that allows them to do this to you will hurt.
Down table is sweet unless you are playing Irving Crane and left him near center. He would go 2 rails to the side then back and shim a front ball leaving the cue on the rail down table. He usually wasn't sitting for long after that move!
I learned this strategy from someone that used to use it on Babe and Irving. They wouldn't play him. For nothing.
BlackJack is that Bruiser on your avitar?
Nick

Now this option preferred by Nick, though I still prefer mine, is one-hundred times more difficult to argue against than the one sending the ball uptable! However, I've failed to understand any more than his selected option of attempting to freeze cueball after going off the ball at far right.

The only reason I'd preferred my option over his is that Nick's preference may disturb the ball directly above it and can possibly result in leaving a dead-shot, which, depending on how it lays, might be best made with a kick off the rail at the left.

As mentioned in my previous posts, I'd go for that same safety move off that right-corner ball myself if I could be very confident that I could accomplish it without disturbing the object-ball directly above it. My preferred move takes no such chances and places cueball in same location leaving opponent in a somewhat less than desirable position.

Avoiding the original two options of this thread is of faaaaar greater importance than which you select of the two options that leave cueball near frozen by center of bottom rail for they are quite close in value.

I'll be back!

Eddie R
 
Thanks for the reply, this is interesting stuff. While I have your attention, what do you think of the intentional foul where a player has already been sent uptable (let's assume no dead ones). A lot of books recommend you kick two rails behind the stack. They say to hit with just enough force to ensure that even if you don't hit the back row dead in the face, the cue ball won't skip sideways and sell out. But sometimes you can hit squarely and pop out a ball (like the two at the head of the rack, or the row just behind) which hits the siderail and makes a legal safe.

What do you think of this tactic? If it works (but there's a foul) the victim could take a scratch and kick back uptable, or you'd probably say even better is to skim off a ball somewhere and park him on the footrail, right?

Is there any real advantage to this other than hoping the other guy does something dumb?
 
Eddie, since you mentioned your 14.1 book you have been working at (and you also mentioned it in our email correspondense a couple of years ago) - is there any chance we could see it printed? PLEASE! :)
 
The need to play safe in 14.1 while way uptable, far from nearest ball

Hi again CreeDo,
You're quite welcome to my replies. I not only enjoy helping others (whenever successful in such attempts of course), I'll admit to finding such pleasure somewhat increased upon being thanked for doing so (ego?).
When need to play safe in 14.1 while way uptable and far from the nearest object-ball and lacking a decent legal option (doing so without fouling), look for a way to alter situation (position of balls) to prevent your opponent from sending you right back up there again. Though you almost certainly already know it, I first want to be sure that you do realize that you are in trouble for your opponent has somewhat the best of it in such situations.
You are of course right in wanting to leave your opponent without the slightest possible chance to score; that's a "gimme" (fairly obvious). You also want to avoid back-scratching if you can do so without much risk; I'd consider that a "gimme" as well, for to be the first to scratch gives you opponent quite an edge because of the penalty for scratching 3 consecutive times.
I should mention, however, in re to your hopes to also avoid the loss of a point by failing to send a ball to a rail, that should not even enter your mind. The better you play the less that one point should matter. Any additional force to save that one point could be your undoing. The main intention should be to beat opponent to the next good scoring opportunity and, unless you played like a Mosconi of the early 50s, to do so without paying any 15-point penalty.
You would normally also be right in the idea of hitting and sticking to the back of the bunch, but not only to accomplish a safety; you would normally want to move one or more object-balls into positions so as to have a decent shot should you find yourself right-back up-table again.
Depending, of course, on the specific situation at hand, you've done quite well in such situations whenever you can force your opponent into providing you with a good shot or safety move; availability of a good shot or safety move would now put you in charge. In other words, you have managed to "switch tables" or should I say, "out-moved" him and so you now have the edge in the current situation.
The impact against back of the bunch can normally be accomplished by kicking off either two cushions or directly off the foot-cushion; the latter often requires the use of side-spin (english).
Well, I've gotta get back to other things. Tomorrow's Memorial Day so have a good one and don't be going to placed that will be closed by forgetting. Just got my reminder or I'd a been across town at the Dentist wondering why they're all locked up.
For a fuller understanding and all such jazz,
Eddie Robin[/QUOTE]
 
You are probably the politest poster this board has seen eddie. Not to further help your ego.

I get it better now I think. I thought the idea was to just gently put the CB on the bottom row (barely touching it) and bite a point. Now I see that popping out a ball (even without getting a rail after) would be a nice advantage.

Maybe sometime I'll practice kicking the full stack to see what kind of balls are useful to rearrange, and possibly figure out a reasonable way to send something to the rail (though I understand that has to be a low priority, as it's not worth selling out if I kick too firmly).
 
CreeDo said:
You are probably the politest poster this board has seen eddie. Not to further help your ego.

I get it better now I think. I thought the idea was to just gently put the CB on the bottom row (barely touching it) and bite a point. Now I see that popping out a ball (even without getting a rail after) would be a nice advantage.

Maybe sometime I'll practice kicking the full stack to see what kind of balls are useful to rearrange, and possibly figure out a reasonable way to send something to the rail (though I understand that has to be a low priority, as it's not worth selling out if I kick too firmly).
Click to expand...

Hi again CreeDo,

Took a peek to see what happened with this thread and realized that your meaning must have somehow gotten past me before. Because I'm rushing like crazy to get back to other matters, i won't bother to take just one more look at the diagram to be absolutely sure, but I didn't mean for shooter to risk being on the first scratch or foul by "biting a point". Isn't one of the object-balls going to reach a cushion on my preferred option?

One of the reasons the Cranfield book's option was so very, very wrong, was that he was willing to take a very big risk of being on the first foul from striving to have cueball come to rest very, very close to the head rail. If cueball fails to stop near that head rail he'd be giving up a fairly easy shot for any straight-shooting opponent at such a high level of play.

Maybe I shouldn't have assumed you understood the importance of reaching the head rail on the Cranfield option. If he falls short an inch or two for example, his opponent then tries to freeze him against the head cushion and now he'd be in big trouble. It is no fun having the first foul when against strong defensive players.

Guess I better go take another look at diagram. Nope, I don't know how I can take that look from where I am now. Just send me a message if my explanation leaves ya hanging up on something! And don't worry, I now understand how to respond to a private message.

Just realized that I may have previously left you with a misunderstanding all this time after you have paid me such a nice compliment. Now I gotta re-read what I've written above to make sure I've done a decent job. looks okay.

Really gotta go,

Eddie Robin
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top