Rodeny Morris Beats the 13 ball Ghost usng CTE

[TheThaiger]

You are SO WRONG. How many times do I have to show you the you tube videos of people teaching aiming in snooker. Of course they mention aiming systems, Back of Ball, Ghost Ball/Dummy Ball, Fractional Aiming and Contact Point Aiming are four methods taught through videos on YouTube by snookers pros and snooker instructors.

These are aimed at beginners. I'm talking about players, both pro and amateur. Nobody discusses aiming in person. I've never discussed it with anyone. We have a lot of snooker on terrestrial tv over here - I'd say 6 weeks of the year are taken with maybe 7/8 hours a day, all with commentary/analysis etc. There is hardly any discussion of aiming - the first time I'd heard of it was when Dennis Taylor mentioned ghost ball about 15 years ago, and I remember thinking he was nuts. I've rarely heard it mentioned since, if ever. It is just not an issue. Nobody in the UK talks about aiming, for either snooker or pool. Nobody.

Why do I "go on" about aiming if potting isn't everything? Because in order to even have a chance to pot balls consistently the FIRST THING one has to do is aim correctly. Then the SECOND thing one must do is execute correctly.

No no no! Aiming is irrelevant. Mechanics: first and last and always. You have it all arse about tit. Your aim improves as your mechanics improve.

Why do pro snooker players miss balls? Tell me the reasons why you think a top ten snooker player misses a shot? Lets leave amateur players out it.

Pressure.

 

[JB Cases]

These are aimed at beginners. I'm talking about players, both pro and amateur. Nobody discusses aiming in person. I've never discussed it with anyone. We have a lot of snooker on terrestrial tv over here - I'd say 6 weeks of the year are taken with maybe 7/8 hours a day, all with commentary/analysis etc. There is hardly any discussion of aiming - the first time I'd heard of it was when Dennis Taylor mentioned ghost ball about 15 years ago, and I remember thinking he was nuts. I've rarely heard it mentioned since, if ever. It is just not an issue. Nobody in the UK talks about aiming, for either snooker or pool. Nobody.

And so what? No one talks about it in the pool room or on tv here either. That doesn't make it unimportant. Maybe the fact that people like you take it for granted is part of the problem. People like you think that balls are missed because of pressure only. Nonsense. Balls are missed because of wrong aiming, wrong execution or a combination or both. Pressure COULD cause wrong aiming or wrong execution or a combination of both. Having a SOLID aiming method relieves some of the pressure.

No no no! Aiming is irrelevant. Mechanics: first and last and always. You have it all arse about tit. Your aim improves as your mechanics improve.

And just how do you figure that? That is such nonsense. You can have the world's best stroke, the most rock solid stance and if you are 1/16th off on your aiming you will miss. I really do wonder if you can play AT ALL? Pool or snooker because you really don't get it.

Pressure.

And what happens under pressure that makes them miss? The either ESTIMATE the aiming wrong, or they execute wrong or a combination of both. Having a solid aiming method relieves part of the pressure and allows more focus to go on to execution. This is fundamentally true of all cue sports.

 

[TheThaiger]

They are easy. No matter what table you play on you adapt to conditions. English pool tables are easy to play on.

Hmm. They are far from easy, with the latest championship tables being absolutely brutal. What is your experience of playing on them, if I may ask?

Yeah, ok. So pool players with their poor fundamentals are beating ex-snooker pros with their semi-monster fundamentals at the, in your opinion, tougher game of pool. Gotcha.

It's nicely put together, but that's not really what i said.

Yeah, right ok. So the snooker gods with their mighty fundamentals can't easily adapt to bigger targets? As for it being a game for girls, well, I doubt that highly. Steve Davis has a tremendous amount of respect for pool and I assume most snooker players also respect pool as well. Pros seem to recognize the difficulty and nuance a lot more than amateurs do.

I have long said that Ronnie O'Sullivan with a month's solid practice and proper coaching could easily become a top one pocket player. Top cueists are top cueists. They might not be familiar with the equipment or the rules but they certainly are familiar with how to make and move balls. I have no doubt that if Shane Van Boeing turned his mighty work ethic towards snooker that he could also be a top 100 snooker pro maybe higher. Of course you will dispute this and the point is moot because it's not going to happen that any top pool player is going to turn towards snooker when they are at the top in pool. Just my opinion as your is yours, meaningless.

I've always said SVB is the only American who has a chance of being a snooker pro. And, sorry, but the snooker world is highly dismissive of pool - there's only one reason for playing pool in their eyes, and that reason is because you're not good enough for snooker.

 

[JB Cases]

Hmm. They are far from easy, with the latest championship tables being absolutely brutal. What is your experience of playing on them, if I may ask?

I played for money for weeks while in London in the mid 90s. I came out winner.

It's nicely put together, but that's not really what i said.

It's the result of what you said.

I've always said SVB is the only American who has a chance of being a snooker pro. And, sorry, but the snooker world is highly dismissive of pool - there's only one reason for playing pool in their eyes, and that reason is because you're not good enough for snooker.

Yeah sure, that's like religion. If you're born in India you're a Hindu. Guess people who grow up in America with zero access to 6x12 snooker tables and a snooker culture are just doomed to never be good enough for snooker. Find me some evidence to back up your claim that the "snooker world" is highly dismissive of pool. Pro quotes only please, not interested in amateur opinion, yours or mine.

And you're wrong, plenty of other Americans could be snooker pros if they had had the opportunity and had put the same drive into learning snooker as they did pool.

 

[TheThaiger]

And so what? No one talks about it in the pool room or on tv here either. That doesn't make it unimportant. Maybe the fact that people like you take it for granted is part of the problem. People like you think that balls are missed because of pressure only. Nonsense. Balls are missed because of wrong aiming, wrong execution or a combination or both. Pressure COULD cause wrong aiming or wrong execution or a combination of both. Having a SOLID aiming method relieves some of the pressure.

Again, that's not what I said. You asked specifically about pros, and I gave you a specific answer on why pros miss. Amateurs miss because of poor fundamentals, primarily, then for a whole host of reasons, including poor aim. The point I'm trying to make is, your obsession with aiming is absurd and illogical, particularly with that chicken wing of yours. Fix that and you'll never worry about aiming again.

And just how do you figure that? That is such nonsense. You can have the world's best stroke, the most rock solid stance and if you are 1/16th off on your aiming you will miss. I really do wonder if you can play AT ALL? Pool or snooker because you really don't get it.

Lol. I've seen YOU play, don't forget. Lol. You just don't understand this - people with the world's best stroke DO NOT WORRY ABOUT AIMING. Got it? Good.

And what happens under pressure that makes them miss? The either ESTIMATE the aiming wrong, or they execute wrong or a combination of both. Having a solid aiming method relieves part of the pressure and allows more focus to go on to execution. This is fundamentally true of all cue sports.

This is entirely possible, I suppose, IF players with good mechanics have problems with aiming, which they don't, obviously.

Mechanics. First, last, always.

 

[JB Cases]

Again, that's not what I said. You asked specifically about pros, and I gave you a specific answer on why pros miss. Amateurs miss because of poor fundamentals, primarily, then for a whole host of reasons, including poor aim. The point I'm trying to make is, your obsession with aiming is absurd and illogical, particularly with that chicken wing of yours. Fix that and you'll never worry about aiming again.

Ok let's use me. So your position is that when I get down on a shot that if I had a laser perfect stroke it would mean I was aiming right? So essentially your position is that people never aim wrong they always aim right and stroke badly? In other words I could aim all the shots for Shane and he would make them because of where I put my bridge hand down? (assuming that we are talking about the pre-aiming-system-extra crispy chicken wing version of John Barton)

Lol. I've seen YOU play, don't forget. Lol. You just don't understand this - people with the world's best stroke DO NOT WORRY ABOUT AIMING. Got it? Good.

Just so YOU understand it, people with the world's best stroke DO worry about aiming. Got it. Good.

This is entirely possible, I suppose, IF players with good mechanics have problems with aiming, which they don't, obviously.

Mechanics. First, last, always.

Again you can have the best mechanics and still be aimed wrong. Take the world's best sniper and move him an inch to the right of the correct aiming line and he misses the target. Aiming is an integral part of the game not something that just comes along as a by product of learning to stand and stroke. You can learn perfect snooker fundamentals at the kitchen table without ever having hit a ball.

 

[TheThaiger]

Yeah sure, that's like religion. If you're born in India you're a Hindu. Guess people who grow up in America with zero access to 6x12 snooker tables and a snooker culture are just doomed to never be good enough for snooker. Find me some evidence to back up your claim that the "snooker world" is highly dismissive of pool. Pro quotes only please, not interested in amateur opinion, yours or mine.

Terry Griffiths, in commentary last year said "real men play snooker. Pool's for boys", or words to that effect. Just last week, in the Welsh Masters, Dominic Dale mentioned nine ball when a player threw his cue at a ball, and Willie Thorne could often be heard saying " that red wouldn't have gone in on a 9 ball table", when the pockets were poorly faced and balls were falling when they really shouldn't.

Pool is too far under the radar to even talk about. You don't understand how much of a minority sport it is here, particularly the big balled variety. It's a bit of lighthearted fun for the snooker world. They have simply no need to mention it at all, certainly not in comparison. Baseball Vs Softball.

And you're wrong, plenty of other Americans could be snooker pros if they had had the opportunity and had put the same drive into learning snooker as they did pool.

Not with the way you play/teach, they don't. No one with mechanics like Puttnam or Morris would scratch the top 100, even if they practiced from now til the end of time.

 

[AtLarge]

... Pool is too far under the radar to even talk about. You don't understand how much of a minority sport it is here, particularly the big balled variety. It's a bit of lighthearted fun for the snooker world. ...

Why do you spend so much of your life on pool forums?

 

[JB Cases]

Terry Griffiths, in commentary last year said "real men play snooker. Pool's for boys", or words to that effect. Just last week, in the Welsh Masters, Dominic Dale mentioned nine ball when a player threw his cue at a ball, and Willie Thorne could often be heard saying " that red wouldn't have gone in on a 9 ball table", when the pockets were poorly faced and balls were falling when they really shouldn't.

Pool is too far under the radar to even talk about. You don't understand how much of a minority sport it is here, particularly the big balled variety. It's a bit of lighthearted fun for the snooker world. They have simply no need to mention it at all, certainly not in comparison. Baseball Vs Softball.

LOL, ok. So why are you here? Pool is a minority sport everywhere. Do you actually have any links to those quotes? I mean I get that you are repeating something you think you heard but citing a link would be better.

Half the shots Efren shoots wouldn't go on a snooker table. And yet no snooker pro is going to Manila to take off all the Pinoys. I would bet that Dennis Orcullo could get staked for a hundred thousand dollars to play a long race of ten ball against any snooker pro from John Higgins on down. Guess it's not worth it for them to go to the Philippines for a month and clear out all the cash. Or to go to Derby City and play some hundred thousand dollar one pocket.

Not with the way you play/teach, they don't. No one with mechanics like Puttnam or Morris would scratch the top 100, even if they practiced from now til the end of time.

If they decided to play snooker then they would of course have to learn the best practices for snooker. And I am quite confident ANY top pool pro who is willing to put in the time doing that could certainly make their way into the top 100 in snooker.

 

[TheThaiger]

Ok let's use me. So your position is that when I get down on a shot that if I had a laser perfect stroke it would mean I was aiming right? .

You would be ABLE to aim right. A perfect stroke ENABLES you to aim right.

This carries on ad infinitum, ad nauseum. The bottom line is, you're afraid to change your stroke, so you put your focus onto something else.

If you want to improve, change your stroke. If you want to blame something for your misses, fanny around with aiming systems.

How long does it take to learn one of these things anyway? There are only, what, 8 different angles and you haven't learned them yet? What on earth have you been doing, man?!

 

[TheThaiger]

Why do you spend so much of your life on pool forums?

What's this forum called again?

 

[JB Cases]

You would be ABLE to aim right. A perfect stroke ENABLES you to aim right.

This carries on ad infinitum, ad nauseum. The bottom line is, you're afraid to change your stroke, so you put your focus onto something else.

If you want to improve, change your stroke. If you want to blame something for your misses, fanny around with aiming systems.

How long does it take to learn one of these things anyway? There are only, what, 8 different angles and you haven't learned them yet? What on earth have you been doing, man?!

And how exactly does a perfect stroke equal perfect aiming? You seem to think that pool players never work on the stroke. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=L478bfv0Bas


I am not the one afraid to change which is one reason why I changed the way I aim. Yes I have learned how to aim. Have you? Let's see some video of your perfect game.

 

[Gerry Williams]

John - best not to feed the trolls.

 

[JB Cases]

John - best not to feed the trolls.

It's ok. Because every time he posts it just keeps the conversation going. No one is stopping people from learning snooker fundamentals and applying them to pool.

We will never see Thaiger posting runouts like you and Stan do. We will never see him post even bad videos like I put up.

What these guys don't get is that every time they post negative knocks it only gives us more opportunity to talk about the positive benefits of our aiming methods. More opportunity to post videos and testimonials. And anyone using tapatalk and the see new posts feature of the forums gets to see these threads every time they bump it.

So I am totally cool with Thaiger and others jumping in wherever they see an opening to knock these methods. The other thing is that he talks about the culture of snooker and how aiming isn't an issue yet totally ignores that there is a pool culture that is NOT going to suddenly adopt snooker stances and methods. That's simple reality.

 

[icem3n]

Ok let's use me. So your position is that when I get down on a shot that if I had a laser perfect stroke it would mean I was aiming right? So essentially your position is that people never aim wrong they always aim right and stroke badly? In other words I could aim all the shots for Shane and he would make them because of where I put my bridge hand down? (assuming that we are talking about the pre-aiming-system-extra crispy chicken wing version of John Barton)




Just so YOU understand it, people with the world's best stroke DO worry about aiming. Got it. Good.




Again you can have the best mechanics and still be aimed wrong. Take the world's best sniper and move him an inch to the right of the correct aiming line and he misses the target. Aiming is an integral part of the game not something that just comes along as a by product of learning to stand and stroke. You can learn perfect snooker fundamentals at the kitchen table without ever having hit a ball.

Hi John, could you try using your aiming system on a 12' snooker table?

Experiment shooting 1/3, 1/2 ball and 1/4 ball. Try object ball at a distance of say more than 4 feet away from the pocket. Maybe you can do the usual video you do and post it on youtube and do a bit of review for your viewer.

 

[JB Cases]

Hi John, could you try using your aiming system on a 12' snooker table?

Experiment shooting 1/3, 1/2 ball and 1/4 ball. Try object ball at a distance of say more than 4 feet away from the pocket. Maybe you can do the usual video you do and post it on youtube and do a bit of review for your viewer.

I have already done it in front of witnesses who are AZ members.

I also did it on a super tight American snooker table that is used for the game of Golf in Oklahoma City.

It works on all of them.

 

[SakuJack]

If they decided to play snooker then they would of course have to learn the best practices for snooker. And I am quite confident ANY top pool pro who is willing to put in the time doing that could certainly make their way into the top 100 in snooker.

You're kidding yourself if you actually believe this. I don't think you realise just how difficult it is to reach that level of play.

 

[ThePoliteSniper]

I don't want to be rude, but I think this

Terry Griffiths, in commentary last year said "real men play snooker. Pool's for boys", or words to that effect. Just last week, in the Welsh Masters, Dominic Dale mentioned nine ball when a player threw his cue at a ball, and Willie Thorne could often be heard saying " that red wouldn't have gone in on a 9 ball table", when the pockets were poorly faced and balls were falling when they really shouldn't.

Pool is too far under the radar to even talk about. You don't understand how much of a minority sport it is here, particularly the big balled variety. It's a bit of lighthearted fun for the snooker world. They have simply no need to mention it at all, certainly not in comparison. Baseball Vs Softball.

is very small-minded. It also sound again like an "us vs. them" mentality, and we are of course the master race of cue sports. I know you didn't mean it that way, and you didn't even say it yourself. But it still puzzles me how any informed player, that has probably played both pool and snooker, can be so dismissive and claim that pool was for boys.

It's obvious that it's much harder in snooker to pot the balls than in pool. But the same is true for your opponent. So how do you compare the difficulty of both games (ignoring the fact that there are multiple pool games)? A frame of snooker can't be compared to a frame of 9-ball. One game of 9-ball isn't meant to last as long as a frame of snooker. What about 14.1? Is a century break as difficult as a 100 ball run? 150? 200?
The point is, the game is as tough as your opponent makes it for you. I got into pool because of watching snooker on TV. But try finding a decent snooker club in Germany. So I play pool competitively, but I also frequently go to the snooker table (there is a league system for both). I could switch to snooker, but there is no contest compared to pool. If you can run 40, welcome to the bundesliga (the highest league). In pool, if your highest run in 14.1 is close to 100 you are just above average. I could use the same logic here and say that snooker is therefore easier.

Other than that I agree. There is no discussion in snooker about aiming or aiming systems beyond the ghost ball method for beginners. It isn't even an issue in pool here. And if snooker pros who by necessity have to have better fundamentals don't use aiming systems, that's telling. It also has been brought up many times before in these discussions, but nobody seems to care.

 

[JB Cases]

You're kidding yourself if you actually believe this. I don't think you realise just how difficult it is to reach that level of play.

How difficult is it? Tell me.

So let me see if I can follow you.

The player has to be incredibly proficient at finding the right line to propel the ball down and extremely accurate when hitting the ball.

And the player has to learn the correct patterns for running the balls. Has to know how to nudge balls the correct way. He has to learn speed control and how the rails react. What else is there? Learning the proper way to play safety shots.

So it's your opinion that say a Johnny Archer who runs out on 4" pockets and who has won everything that there is to win in pool could not with a professional coach learn these things with intense training?

What advantage do you think that the average snooker player would have over Johnny? Stance? You think Johnny couldn't adjust his stance in a matter of weeks? Stroke? Seriously, you think Johnny can't figure out the snooker stroke.

Speed control? You think Johnny can't figure out how to move the cue ball on a snooker table?

I just don't understand why it's so easy for amateurs to spout off about what professionals can and cannot do. When you reach the absolute pinnacle of any cue sport you have learned all the skills you would need to have a head start in learning any other cue sport. That doesn't mean you would dominate that other discipline or even be average at it but it does mean that you have all the basic skill and knowledge to understand and adapt to the other discipline's nuances.

Tell you what, if I were a millionaire I'd bet the entire membership of AZB that I could take a top pool pro and ship him off to England and inside a year he would be a touring pro snooker player and in the top 100. I'd bet $100,000 on that proposition. Assuming of course that it's possible under the rules to go from being a complete newbie to a touring pro in a year. If not then under the shortest amount of time under the rules that it's physically possible with the poorest of performances to get into the top 100 my guy would do it. Whatever the bare minimum is he would fulfill it or better and be a top 100 snooker player.

But this is all a pipe dream because no top professional player in the USA is going to sacrifice their pool career just to be an average snooker player. But I firmly believe that if Johnny Archer had grown up in London and taken up snooker instead of pool then he would have likely been a top ten snooker player as well. I think that the same drive and determination that made him a great pool player would have made him into a great snooker player.

The doors to the TAR studio in Las Vegas are open though for any current or former snooker pro to challenge America's best pool players. As Bob Barker used to say, "Come on Down." Free and easy trip to Vegas to pick up an easy 10-50,000. Surely the #24 snooker player could use a little extra easy money?

Since as you say the skill level is so far above the pool players then it's a lock that no pool player should win a race to 100 in any pool game against any snooker player right?

 

[JB Cases]

Other than that I agree. There is no discussion in snooker about aiming or aiming systems beyond the ghost ball method for beginners. It isn't even an issue in pool here. And if snooker pros who by necessity have to have better fundamentals don't use aiming systems, that's telling. It also has been brought up many times before in these discussions, but nobody seems to care.

This is simply not true. In snooker instruction they mention many systems other then pure Ghost Ball.

Back of Ball without ghost ball.
Line to contact point without ghost ball
Contact Point to Contact Point.
Fractional Aiming taught by Steve Davis.

The thing is that even if they don't use any of the controversial aiming systems that doesn't mean that those methods are invalid. What would you say if Steve Davis and Stan hooked up and Steve came away with the opinion that the method is valid and works for snooker as well?

Would you tell Steve that he is wrong? Just because a technique hasn't been adopted by someone else doesn't make it worthless or invalid. Most pool professionals now don't know what CTE or ProOne is either. But the few that have had good instruction in it have had only favorable testimonials about it. With Rodney being the latest top pro to say he likes this way to aim.

How about this.

Snooker is snooker. Pool is pool. The two worlds are separate and snooker players do whatever they have to do to play well in snooker and pool players do whatever they have to do to play well in pool.

Pool players are not stupid, if they really thought that snooker fundamentals would make them even better then they would all be learning them. If snooker coaches could prove that snooker fundamentals make people that much better then they could make a ton of money here teaching those techniques.

You know what makes players great? Putting in 20 hours a day the right way. Does not matter what aiming method you use. Put in the hours with it and you will realize one of two things, it works and you should keep using it, it doesn't work and you should figure out another way. Players who put in the time the right way see the results.

And again, welcome back.