Omg!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Fatboy]

"You cant train in what God left out" having said that, never in my life could I see that shot, think of it(if I was in that spot) or even execute it if someone showed it to me, either you have it in you or you dont.


Jay, did Ronnie come with shots like this in his prime?, I only watched him after his prime, but I didnt see the creativity in Ronnie that Efren has. Perhaps I was a bit late to see everything he had.

 

[Hail Mary Shot]

Was he really going for the leave on the seven? I would have thought he would have been trying to get the cue ball a little closer to the bottom rail for the one or for position if he missed. I don't see the sellout, but that doen't mean I'm right either. If the ten didn't drop, it's still going to be in the jaws and if the cueball rolled down near the bottom rail, either way he was going to be in pretty good shape? Yes? No? What did I miss?

You seem so certain that the 10 would be left hanging on the jaws of that pocket, considering the power and speed applied on hitting the 10. it wasn't slow rolled too much, so the probability of what you're suggesting does not guarantee an intended miss. the 10 could also had hit a rail and bounced off of it if it wasn't cut precisely. another thing, why kill the CB if he wanted to put in the position on the pink 4 (near the bottom rail) and not along the area of the 7? the 1 ball is near the foot spot by the way and not near the bottom rail as you were saying. anyhow, the shot on the 4 was the ideal position for the CB as you were also suggesting. but it's Efren, not me nor you who's shooting. we might only know a glimpse of what he is thinking only after he made the shot or ask him ourselves.

though there is also one part of that segment that I'm certain of what he was trying to do after shooting the 7. caroming the CB off the stack then back on to kick the 11 to free the 15. it would have been nice to see if he made it successfully but fell short on the attempt. seems he was already cruising and showing the spectators an exhibition.

 

[jay helfert]

"You cant train in what God left out" having said that, never in my life could I see that shot, think of it(if I was in that spot) or even execute it if someone showed it to me, either you have it in you or you dont.


Jay, did Ronnie come with shots like this in his prime?, I only watched him after his prime, but I didnt see the creativity in Ronnie that Efren has. Perhaps I was a bit late to see everything he had.

If anything Ronnie was MORE creative than Efren, coming up with shots where there are none. And he would run out behind it, once he made that first ball. In this same situation, if somehow he made the same shot and got behind the balls, it would have been all over!

What Efren does better than Ronnie is play tight position shots and bump balls around to open them up. Ronnie would open up clusters with a harder stroke and just try to get behind them anywhere. He was so deadly on combos and kisses. When Efren gets "into" a cluster of balls, he works the cue ball better than anyone ever. He is amazing in close where he must move the cue a few inches one way or the other.

They definitely had different styles. It would have been fascinating to see them match up in their prime. I did see the match at Hard Times in the mid 90's where Efren gave Ronnie 8-7 and the breaks. Ronnie beat him to the shot every game and ran 4-6 balls. And he still lost, game after game. Several games Ronnie needed one and Efren needed eight and still won.

The old Ronnie would have run out almost every time, and won easily. As great as Efren is, I'm not convinced he is a better One Pocket player than Ronnie was. I've watched both of them many, many times and that is my opinion.

 

[Da Poet]

You seem so certain that the 10 would be left hanging on the jaws of that pocket, considering the power and speed applied on hitting the 10. it wasn't slow rolled, so the probability of what you're suggesting does not guarantee an intended miss. the 10 could also had boggled out of that pocket or hit a rail and bounced off of it. another thing, why kill the CB if he wanted to put in the position on the one (near the bottom rail) and not along the area of the 7?

Oh no, I'm not certain about anything here that's why I was asking the question.

Even if the ten didn't stop in the jaws, the one protects banking the ten a little bit anyways, so it seems that the riskiest part of the shot was the leave. I was wondering why he would prefer to leave it for the seven instead of letting it roll a little further for either the one (Edit, It really looks to me like the one is the ball on the bottom rail?) and/or harder position for his opponent just in case the ten missed? It looks like he had the angles figured right? Maybe it was a two way leave thing?

 

[Hail Mary Shot]

Oh no, I'm not certain about anything here that's why I was asking the question.

Even if the ten didn't stop in the jaws, the one protects banking the ten a little bit anyways, so it seems that the riskiest part of the shot was the leave. I was wondering why he would prefer to leave it for the seven instead of letting it roll a little further for either the one (Edit, It really looks to me like the one is the ball on the bottom rail?) and/or harder position for his opponent just in case the ten missed? It looks like he had the angles figured right? Maybe it was a two way leave thing?

I believe there is enough room for the bank on the 7. but as what Danny D. was thinking, Efren might be feeling bad for Jason that he was willing to sell out some balls.

 

[wahcheck]

I think

this is the kind of shot where the expression, "cutting the ball backwards" comes from.....seems to me like even MORE than a 90 degree cut.....

 

[Fatboy]

If anything Ronnie was MORE creative than Efren, coming up with shots where there are none. And he would run out behind it, once he made that first ball. In this same situation, if somehow he made the same shot and got behind the balls, it would have been all over!

What Efren does better than Ronnie is play tight position shots and bump balls around to open them up. Ronnie would open up clusters with a harder stroke and just try to get behind them anywhere. He was so deadly on combos and kisses. When Efren gets "into" a cluster of balls, he works the cue ball better than anyone ever. He is amazing in close where he must move the cue a few inches one way or the other.

They definitely had different styles. It would have been fascinating to see them match up in their prime. I did see the match at Hard Times in the mid 90's where Efren gave Ronnie 8-7 and the breaks. Ronnie beat him to the shot every game and ran 4-6 balls. And he still lost, game after game. Several games Ronnie needed one and Efren needed eight and still won.

The old Ronnie would have run out almost every time, and won easily. As great as Efren is, I'm not convinced he is a better One Pocket player than Ronnie was. I've watched both of them many, many times and that is my opinion.

thanks Jay,

it sounds like the Tyson-Ali fight that never happened, there are good arguments for both sides. If he beat him to the shot every time then Ronnie should have won,

 

[arsenius]

Billy had me busting outloud. "I'm not worthy of being here..."

Brilliant.

 

[skins]

I'll be honest with you...it's no hanger but not THAT hard to make...

your right. the shot is not that hard it just looks that way from the cameras wide angle. the object ball is not as far from the back rail as you think. this shot was played on a fairly slow table which is evident by the speed and deceleration of the cue ball as it comes off the top rail. it's much harder on a fast table to keep the cue ball from coming so far down but it's obvious to me that he wanted to come down deep just in case he missed the shot he would leave at best a tough bank.

 

[Pushout]

your right. the shot is not that hard it just looks that way from the cameras wide angle. the object ball is not as far from the back rail as you think. this shot was played on a fairly slow table which is evident by the speed and deceleration of the cue ball as it comes off the top rail. it's much harder on a fast table to keep the cue ball from coming so far down but it's obvious to me that he wanted to come down deep just in case he missed the shot he would leave at best a tough bank.

I think the time, place, game, the score, opponent, have a TON to do with how hard that shot is to shoot. No offense, but I'd like to see either one of you shoot that shot in that situation.

 

[Hail Mary Shot]

your right. the shot is not that hard it just looks that way from the cameras wide angle. the object ball is not as far from the back rail as you think. this shot was played on a fairly slow table which is evident by the speed and deceleration of the cue ball as it comes off the top rail. it's much harder on a fast table to keep the cue ball from coming so far down but it's obvious to me that he wanted to come down deep just in case he missed the shot he would leave at best a tough bank.

So you think that that shot has nothing to do with CB control? disregarding spin or english application? just plainly playing the shot on a slow cloth? a sudden deceleration after coming off the 2nd rail is caused by a slow cloth? a CB can be decelerated immediately right after hitting the first rail if a player applies a killed shot on the CB. but a killed shot on the second rail requires a lot of skill and knowledge for it to be accomplished. that's the difficult part of the shot.

 

[3andstop]

So you think that that shot has nothing to do with CB control? disregarding spin or english application? just plainly playing the shot on a slow cloth? a sudden deceleration after coming off the 2nd rail is caused by a slow cloth? a CB can be decelerated immediately right after hitting the first rail if a player applies a killed shot on the CB. but a killed shot on the second rail requires a lot of skill and knowledge for it to be accomplished. that's the difficult part of the shot.

I'll requalify what I say that this was a great shot in a pressure game situation. It is not a shot so crazy difficult that any B+ or higher player would be afraid to shoot. They all look great when they go in, and of course Efrin has laser eyes and a true stroke. He is a great pool player.

Now with respect to the ball decelerating after the second rail, as I said earlier, many many many advanced players opt to shoot this shot with a ton of inside english because it allows them to place the cue tip closer to the point of contact on the object ball with a very thin cut.

The decelerating off the second rail is a natural by-product of heavy inside english at this angle. You can't disregard the english, the technique of shooting these shots with deep inside english is the cause of the slowing cue ball.

Try to spin a shot in and deflect to that appoximate angle. (the shot doesn't have to be that thin) anyway shoot it in with heavy inside english, deflect to that angle.... AND .... try NOT to decelerate the cue ball off the second rail. If you can spin a ball in, and have that stroke in your playing ability, the cue HAS to die off that rail.

I'm not trying to take anything away from a difficult shot, but it would have been much more amazing to shoot that with as much inside as he did and have the cue NOT DIE off the second rail.

Great shot, great player, very much overblown by the commentator however.

Ya know. most shots you can do one of three things, undercut it, overcut it or make it. That shot eliminated one chance to miss, cause ya sure won't over cut it.

 

[skins]

I think the time, place, game, the score, opponent, have a TON to do with how hard that shot is to shoot. No offense, but I'd like to see either one of you shoot that shot in that situation.

been there and done ballsy shots like this many times as well as Craig i'm sure. the shot is not hard to make for a player and the position only takes speed control that's it. like i've stated it only looks harder because of the camera angle. take a good look at the shot and do a rough measurement of where the balls are and set them up you'll see the shot angle is no where near 90%. if you're ever in the NW Indiana area i'll demonstrate ( no this is not a challenge ) unless you completely insist.

 

[skins]

So you think that that shot has nothing to do with CB control? disregarding spin or english application? just plainly playing the shot on a slow cloth? a sudden deceleration after coming off the 2nd rail is caused by a slow cloth? a CB can be decelerated immediately right after hitting the first rail if a player applies a killed shot on the CB. but a killed shot on the second rail requires a lot of skill and knowledge for it to be accomplished. that's the difficult part of the shot.

i never said it had "nothing" to do with cue ball control. it has allot to do with it but so does the table speed. watch the shot and you'll see it wasn't hit that firm. the "kill" spin on a shot stoked like this would die well before hitting the top rail so your theory of kill causing this is wrong imo. the shot was "stroked" with inside just a hair below center. it's the inside english still present at time of contact with the top rail that slows the ball down but you still see how fast the ball comes off that rail and how quickly it slows down after, telling you the cloth is fairly slow.