Hi Dave,
Re my various posts, I certainly wish I'd taken more time with them instead of simply sending one off because of wanting my breakfast or sending another that needed work so as to get back to doing one chore or another. They could have been better; in other words, I should have done better.
Thanks Dave, for the "genius" remark (possibly a very bit of an exaggeration, (just possibly mind you). Yes, obviously egotistical and quite proud of it. Reminds me of how half the country went bananas when Muhammed Ali kept saying he was the greatest. Well it so happens he probably was.
Most seem to want their top athletes, actors, and so on to be humble, and so when we see a Jack Nickolas, Arnold Palmer, Joe Dimag, Babe Ruth, or whoever that might be quite accomplished, we hear a large percentage of them talk about how they were, "just lucky I guess," or "happened to have a good day,” or “everything was going my way," or “it was that my partner was so great” or “so and so made me look better than I am.” Don't believe a word of it; they know how good they are.
Nobody ever becomes great at anything without full well knowing it and believing it. Ability is based on confidence; if you really didn't think you could walk you would probably be in a wheelchair for the rest of your life no matter how many doctors say, "but there's nothing wrong with him." One can't accomplish what one doesn't think he can do. Take the night off if you walk the tight-rope and suddenly lose confidence.
Why the above explanation? To get better at anything be a bit more egotistical, not less; just don't show it near as much as I do because many will react strongly. Why? Partially because most who never became great at anything will find someone else's ego or bragging quite irritating. (This post may prove a bit difficult for the more sensitive or those of you that are not yet used to me.)
Those that have accomplished great things in life don’t seem to mind braggarts (braggerts, not liars) near as much. I can kinda get away with it to a large degree because of how I'm normally alone at my work almost 24/7; much like a hermit I guess. Now I can let you all know that it's true; I am a genius (just kidding around Dave--do happen to know a hell of a lot about pool though).
However, I can’t continue with so much posting and it is a bit of a shame I’d spent so much time fencing instead of providing a bit more help. Felt like I had to first get you guys to have confidence in what I'd post before providing much in the way of tech--students and teachers do better when they have confidence in each other.
Tell ya what. Since I’ve already explained, and possibly upset a few, re how the average one-pocket player shouldn’t be playing the game from an inability to execute sufficiently well, before I back off, I can at least tell ya why many of ya should take up straight-pool, in particular, while developing those basics. There’s just not very much as frustrating as a player who well knows the strategies of the one-pocket game but can’t execute a lick. Hey; I've been there. I was no "natural."
You get more easy shots playing straight-pool than in any other pocket-billiard discipline and that will, in turn, permit you to place that much more attention on the development of fundamentals. That is one reason to play on easier tables. No other pool game facilitates development of an inner rhythm as well as straight-pool and straight-pool players are far more likely to see dead-shots in the rack.
Having already explained the importance of confidence; its not so easily developed shooting balls into the smaller pockets. I suggest smaller tables or larger pockets if ya can’t make a spot-shot at least 75% of the time. And, though I prefer my students to reach runs of a 100 (yes, 100 is easy when ya know how) before switching back to one-pocket, I’d think at the very least you should be able to run 50 from time to time before learning the strategies of the one-pocket game.
Obviously, players can more fully focus on other parts of their game when the shot is more easily made, but what I have in mind is a bit more than that. Under conditions that encourage highest levels of play (level table, good lighting, large pockets, new cloth, new balls, etc.), a player will have sufficient confidence in pocketing a ball to permit striving for and attaining a more difficult, aggressive, and rewarding, level or style of both position and safety play. Even a player’s shot choice will tend to improve from added confidence in making the more difficult but more rewarding shot.
Got news for ya, depending on the player of course, the smaller pockets of today are actually hindering the development of accuracy for the average player far more than it is helping. It is also hurting development in other areas of ability, such as the measuring of spin or speed, for so much attention must be on pocketing that ball.
Did you ever happen to think about how when you are attempting to shoot a spot-shot, for example, that you are aiming to send the ball to the center of the pocket-target? Ever stop to think of how you would have done the exact same thing re stance, stroke, what-have-you if the pocket was half-inch larger or smaller? All the small pockets do to increase your accuracy is to make you put a larger percentage of attention on pocketing the ball thereby permitting less attention on your other abilities. It is the larger pockets that help build confidence and permit faster and fuller development of other abilities. Which seems the more logical to accomplish first? Easy tables is so obvious when teaching out and out beginners, so when did get so accurate that this is no longer true for you?
Once again the time has sped by. I’ll be back, though not often. I know I’ve made some friends. Gone through the above twice and hope that was enough to catch any possible silliness!
For a better game,
Eddie Robin
