Flowerbomb
Member
Ok, thanks.
Yeah, I for sure need more time on a table. I don't get to play nearly as often as I want to or need to. I like picking up advice and tips when I can, so when I do get to play, I can add them to my arsenal.
power draw
- Thread starter evergruven
- Start date
Ok, thanks.
Yeah, I for sure need more time on a table. I don't get to play nearly as often as I want to or need to. I like picking up advice and tips when I can, so when I do get to play, I can add them to my arsenal.
I've explained multiple times in this thread already. I've offered a shot to shoot so you can see for yourself. Do you want the diagrammed example yet again?
Trimming my remarks (yet again) and saying "no, you say why I'm wrong" shows anyone who looks at our exchange that I've given multiple reasons and you've contributed nothing to the discussion.
If you want to discuss with me rather than trolling, stop trimming my responses--which have included the answers "you seek" multiple times already in this thread.
If the person who proposes the idea is not willing to explain why it works or their reasoning doesn't make sense, you may want to put that idea lower in your stack of things to try. And as Dan White mentioned, you have to test each idea on the table.I get so torn in threads like this!
I'm trying to learn and pick up little pieces of information to apply to my game. So, I see a thread like this where I think I could learn something. But then, 50% of the contributors will say - Do it this way.
And then 50% says - No that's wrong. Do it this way instead.
Lol! It leaves me wondering which way is best.
If you want tested information, try Dr. Dave's site: https://billiards.colostate.edu/ -- he also has lots of videos on his YouTube channel.
I get so torn in threads like this!
I'm trying to learn and pick up little pieces of information to apply to my game. So, I see a thread like this where I think I could learn something. But then, 50% of the contributors will say - Do it this way.
And then 50% says - No that's wrong. Do it this way instead.
Lol! It leaves me wondering which way is best.
I get so torn in threads like this!That’s why it’s hard to take these threads serious. The best way to learn any of this stuff is to play and play a lot.
No serious players know calculates all of this stuff on a scientific calculator before shooting. It’s comes instinctively after many years of playing. If you are stuck in your game or feel you are not progressing then watch PRO players on YouTube. All of this stuff you read is for the birds. The rail birds that is.
Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums
Just keep in mind this is advanced intermediate pool. IOW technical stuff that mortals can manage with sufficient prep. PJ will always argue the laboratory physics and geometry with no regard to how the field actually does things - um, in the field. That's neither here nor there as far as your development is concerned. If you want to develop your draw stroke, start with small proportions. Start inside a foot from cue to object ball. See how low and high you can hit the ball and the effect it has on the shot. If you are already proficient in moving the ball forward and backward, work on specific distances. Follow a couple inches, then draw a couple inches. Keep increasing the distance by an inch. If that doesn't magically happen, no biggie it's not supposed to. Small steps...
I'm trying to learn and pick up little pieces of information to apply to my game. So, I see a thread like this where I think I could learn something. But then, 50% of the contributors will say - Do it this way.
And then 50% says - No that's wrong. Do it this way instead.
Lol! It leaves me wondering which way is best.
You are a liar. I'm not sure how to put that more gently or word it better.
You are a liar:
1) The swooping topspin stroke is employed by pros and you said "I don't want to learn that stroke", your admission that I found an exception to your (wrong) rule.
2) I've given you other examples of strokes/issues/concerns/physical advantages.
You are a liar:
You claim I had one point, I have multiple points that prove you're wrong, and that you lie.
Please put me on ignore. I recommend everyone put you on ignore or you can leave the forum and save us the trouble.
Publicly melting down doesn’t make your case.
Then it shouldn’t be hard to find a video of a pro doing it.
pj
chgo
I think what you mean to say is "PJ describes physics and geometry that explain how things work, but not everybody can get it."
pj
chgo
Typical for you. Lab science mostly explains how lab experiments work to the best of the lab scientist's ability to articulate what he thinks he understands. Pool is no exception but it started with extensive real world trials; experiments, and it's the science that needs to catch up.
How about an example or two of science needing to "catch up" with pool's "real world trials and experiments"?
pj
chgo
How about Dr. Dave backwards engineering the highlights of the last 100 years of pool.
I have found it more relaxing to simply ignore that straightline says. It is only very rarely useful to anyone. I did look in for this one case, though.
He seems not to like Dr. Dave and he's belittling Dr. Dave's videos where he explains how some remarkable shots are done. Many other people find the videos useful and informative.
I think the phrase that is usually used is "reverse engineering". That's where you analyse a product or result and figure out how it was done, usually in order to produce the same item. The classic example in my day job was when a company would take an integrated circuit from some other manufacturer and strip off the layers of the circuit one at a time and eventually produce a diagram containing every transistor and circuit on the chip. One reason for doing that besides duplicating the product is to make sure that the chip maker is not violating your patents.
I like Dr Dave. You guys just keep dancing around trying to be correct is all. Actual intellectuals would know all I said is pool came first.
Did you just call us pseudointellectuals?
That's the nicest thing anybody's ever said to me.
pj
chgo
Hmm. I would think my children or wife telling me they love me is far more nice than a pool comment.
Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums
No, he is not that close.
The shot in dispute is from across the table. I once saw a guy jacked up vertical on the end rail get two short rails with what looked like a whisper of a stroke. That's at least as much physique as it is skill. To be fair the object ball is frozen to the side rail just outside the pocket. This matters since the rail prevents any extraneous hook and scrub. The Massey shot is in optimal position.
I've never melted down here at AZ. You lied repeatedly. You bully people who disagree with you and troll people far more than you help people, which is why you've been banned multiple times from this forum. But I forgive you, as I'm a Christian. I just wish you were a nicer person, and honest.
You need to watch more pros, if you've never seen one aim at the base of the cue ball then add topspin . . . of course, your prior assertion that it was a pro technique you didn't want to learn is a tacit admission that you're still wrong.