Shape Route Nonmenclature Proposal
- Thread starter Colin Colenso
- Start date
Well, I could have just asked if the members had any suggestions for positional routes. Instead, I searched terminology lists and presented options for names, hoping to stimulate discussion.
But, no one seems to know anything, nor care, that the best way to describe shots is in very vague terms like smash it and run around.
I suspect the main reason is that most of the readers here shit their pants when they happen across a shot that needs the CB to do much more than dribble into position.
Colin
Last edited:
I don't share your low opinion of the others on this forum. I suspect the real reason we don't already have fancy terms for routes is because no one has needed them before. Players who benefit from route discussions know enough that saying "high-inside to come back out to the center" is enough.
High inside is enough of a descriptor for those who haven't learned the many routes and their variables.
Colin
Last edited:
If you say so, charlie.
I have spent much time on shape routes, their variances and limits, mostly using Hennings Pro Book as a guide. I have never thought to give word names to these routes, and to the best of my recollection he does not name them either. Having a common (one that the majority of people know and use) would be handy in communicating between players, but it is entirely possible to be very familiar with shape routes and have no common name for them. In other words those who have "learned the many routes and their variables" don't need the wordy names either.
Dave
By the time a player is good enough to learn how to shoot the shots, he knows what they are.
How does he refer to routes without some kind of naming system? Surely it would aid in communicating types of routes?
Colin
So you know what spin and angle of approach and position of rail to hit on a crown 3 railer to avoid scratching into the far corner when going to the 4th rail?
Or, you just guessing and happy with that?
Colin
They are numbered.
The question I have is about the need to communicate. When I play pool I have no need to communicate my route selection or intent, I simply decide then play the shot. While deciding between multiple choices my thought process does not need names for the routes, it is done in visuals and confidences. The only reason to communicate is when two or more people are discussing routes . Then it seems to me that if everyone knows a simple common convention for describing routes, as I offered with the numbered-rail-hit suggestion, it would be MUCH easier and more effective than using a set of somewhat arbitrary word names that everyone needs to memorize. Frankly I rarely discuss pool shot routes with others, and when I do the description is all about the rails hit, and never includes the name of a pro or any arbitrary word like "crown". The way I see
grin it.Dave
Dave,They are numbered.
The question I have is about the need to communicate. When I play pool I have no need to communicate my route selection or intent, I simply decide then play the shot. While deciding between multiple choices my thought process does not need names for the routes, it is done in visuals and confidences. The only reason to communicate is when two or more people are discussing routes . Then it seems to me that if everyone knows a simple common convention for describing routes, as I offered with the numbered-rail-hit suggestion, it would be MUCH easier and more effective than using a set of somewhat arbitrary word names that everyone needs to memorize. Frankly I rarely discuss pool shot routes with others, and when I do the description is all about the rails hit, and never includes the name of a pro or any arbitrary word like "crown". The way I see
Dave
I'd be happy with a numbered rail-hit type naming system, but there is a hurdle.
Say we number the rails from breaking end head rail as 1, then number the other rails 2-6 clockwise. Essentially, a 1-2 is the same as a 1-6 and the same as a 4-3 and the same as a 4-5.
This is why I proposed an 'end double' to replace all these.
And a 'side double' would replace a 6-1, 2-1, 3-4 and 5-4.
I'm trying to simplify things, not complicate them.
btw: I found one video from Henning's Pro Book. Looks like great material. It was an 'end double' with CB starting Center Table and coming back to Center Table.
[Edit: Simply put, my naming methodology reduces any numerical naming system of rail hit patterns to 1/4 of the original complexity.]
Colin
Last edited:
Yes, similar shapes that start at the head end will have different rail numbers than those that start at the foot end of the table. In my opinion this is trivial, and certainly not as big an issue as having to memorize arbitrary names. One method is simple and deterministic the other arbitrary and subject to language. Being an engineer that contest is no contest :thumbup: Of course as already stated I do not believe there is a great need for either :shrug:
<edit> A thought occurred to me (hey, it can happen) ... I wonder what our instructors think of naming/numbering shapes. While I do not think it necessary, they might have a different opinion. </edit>
Dave
Last edited:
Dave,
Most getting instruction are happy to pot a ball and maybe get shape off 1 rail. The doubling around a corner is about as far as most players will ever get to analyzing shape.
Stunning into a side rail with inside for a 3 rail crown is anathema to most. So pursuing the minutia between a natural running 5 rail from a crown 3 rail pattern and twisting it to check off rails 4 & 5 is way beyond most player's or instructor's thoughts.
But, for those who want to become more familiar, learning a half dozen shape names, with a few descriptors could be advantageous to trying to learn 24 versions of rail hit orders which would also require descriptors in terms of how the CB comes to the first rail.
My proposition is for a niche audience looking to gain insight into the more complicated positional routes, aided by an efficiency in terminology.
Colin