The Mosconi Cup is Not About ...

Jack Nicklaus is most proud of the Wins that he got when he did NOT have his A game.

His B game was often times good enough to beat the A games of some of the 'best' in the game.

Best 2 ALL.
 
randallt6 said:
sky has perfect fundamentals, never any movement from his body and his stroke is straight and smooth. mike d tends to get a big jerky with his stroke which is easier to **** up under the heat.
Click to expand...

No he doesn't, that's like saying Steph Curry has perfect fundamentals. With that said Curry is the best shooter ever so you're probably right, we should all abandon our idea of proper elbow angle.
 
mikeyfrost said:
No he doesn't, that's like saying Steph Curry has perfect fundamentals. With that said Curry is the best shooter ever so you're probably right, we should all abandon our idea of proper elbow angle.
Click to expand...

elbow angle doesnt mean shit, if thats the position that lets them move the cue straight then thats the perfect angle for them.
 
randallt6 said:
sky has perfect fundamentals, never any movement from his body and his stroke is straight and smooth. mike d tends to get a big jerky with his stroke which is easier to **** up under the heat.
Click to expand...

mikeyfrost said:
This is the case for not only Johnny but also Oscar as well. The nature of their game holds up under the heat even though there top gear isn't as high as these guys on the team.

I do have to ask though based on this premise...why is Sky having such success? He may be the exception to this rule.
Click to expand...

skateboardkid said:
Sky has far from perfect fundamentals, but he does not have much body movement.

Daz has the best fundamentals of any of the players playing this year.

Sky has an awkward elbow angle - not something you'd teach, anyway.

Some great players don't have perfect 90 Degree angles on the back arm, but you can't say someone has "perfect fundamentals" unless they do.
Click to expand...

I too noticed that Sky has a bit of a chicken wing but he does appear to stay down nicely on the ball and he has a nice smooth cueing action. I would think those two are more important than the elbow angle.

Nostroke said:
Those one rail kick misses were bad, especially where all you had to do was divide the distance in half . You have a billionth inch short of 3 balls across for a target. No excuse for a pro to miss imho.

Next year proficiency in the diamond system should be a requirement for team membership. They weren't too hot with the 3 railers either.
Click to expand...

I bet Sky hasn't played nearly as much pool on fresh cloth as the other players in this event. This is one area where experience is obviously valuable. I bet on a worn in table, as well as Skyler banks -- and he may bank better than anybody in the event -- he would probably kick just fine. The slick cloth just got the best of him.
 
BasementDweller said:
The Mosconi Cup is NOT about how well you can play but instead it's about how poorly you can. In other words, the Cup is more a measure of a player's B game than their A. This is why year after year after year we end up short of the finish line. When it comes to measuring how poorly a player is capable of performing it is all about their fundamentals.

Up and down the line, year after year, the European team consists of players whose fundamentals prevent them from falling apart. Meanwhile, the U.S. team is consistently plagued with top players who have simple but yet major fundamental issues. It's hard to argue against Shane Van Boening's label as the best U.S. player. It's also hard to argue against him having significant mechanical issues that finally get the best of him every year during the Mosconi Cup. His long and hitchy stroke always seems to let him down at the worst time. He has too much stroke for the lightening fast conditions that are always present during the Mosconi Cup. This coupled with his poor transition from his backstroke to his forward one, causes him to consistently overrun position on these lightening fast tables.

I realize Shane's in a unique position because his A game is as good if not better than anybody in the world and it's helped him win many major titles, so simplifying his stroke mechanics is probably not an idea that he would even entertain but if he doesn't do something -- he will continue to get the results at the Mosconi Cup that does each and every year.

Mike Dechaine is in a similar position. This past year he's won his share of events and he has solidified his position as the 2nd best player in the U.S. BUT the guy has NEVER been still while shooting. He rises up on nearly each and every shot and he always has. He gets away with this when everything is going his way and he's feeling nice and comfortable at the table, but when things get tense this movement gets the best of him and all of a sudden his B game isn't good enough to get across the finish line.

If Dechaine really is the 2nd best player in the U.S. it will not be for long because Justin Bergman doesn't have any glaring fundamental issues like these two players have. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see Justin rise up to become the U.S.'s top player in the near future.

There's another player out there that has a very formidable B game and that's Johnny Archer. I will readily admit that both Shane and Dechaine are favorites against Johnny in a comfortable setting such as a long race tournament match or a gambling session but that's not what the Mosconi Cup is. Johnny has a game that holds up under pressure and his Mosconi Cup results prove it. For this reason alone I think he should have found his way onto this team but I realize I'm in the minority on this one.

The Mosconi Cup is not an A game showcase. It's all about the B game and we are flat out at a disadvantage because our top two players do not have world class B games and all the European players on the Mosconi Cup do.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree with only ONE of your points, BasementDweller.
That is, the MC is about a player's A or B game.
I only say that because it seems like a moot point to bring that up because everyone's game
tends to go down a bit, therefore it's a "wash" in that regard.

Indeed, it's about who can handle to intense pressure the best.
As alluded to, those players with the best fundamentals (in any sport) stand to do better
when pressure (and the game is on the line: and that's the case at the MC where EVERY game counts) is high.

You all know what?
The take away here is that perhaps, just perhaps,
the Europeans have better fundamentals than the Americans.
Anyone ever thought about that?

Obviously, all these players are capable of running racks on that same table at any given time.
It's the simple things done correctly that win. Europeans do that. It's the culture. It's perhaps even
the way the younger players are taught when playing pool.

All these threads on pocket size, crowd noise, and other minutiae have little to do with the nine ball
going into the pocket vis-à-vis good fundamentals
 
Last edited:
boogeyman said:
I respectfully disagree with your perspective BasementDweller.

Although most of the players seem to play a half- to whole-level lower than normal,
that's beside the point at the MC. It's about who can handle to intense pressure the best.
As alluded to, those players with the best fundamentals (in any sport) stand to do better
when pressure (and the game is on the line: and that's the case at the MC where EVERY game counts) is high.

You all know what?
The take away here is that perhaps, just perhaps,
the Europeans have better fundamentals than the Americans.
Anyone ever thought about that?
Click to expand...

You just said that you disagree, and then proceeded to assert the same points he made. :confused:
 
How one is connected to the cue can & will effect other aspects.

Sometimes making a change in the hands can be very difficult & to be honest, not always worth the change. Sometimes it is sort of a necessity & other times not.

There is no one set of 'fundamentals' other than moving the cue in a straight line & then even that is not a 'fundamental' if it gets on line for contact by other means.

Fundamentals can really be relative to the individual IF they do not break down under pressure & stress.

We are not robots, but instead individuals.

A tucked elbow might suit one's connection to the cue & the type of stroke that they make.

Someone else's connection to the cue & stroke might not fit with a tucked elbow.

To each there own. We are not all cut from the same cookie cutter & should not all be put into the same pigeon hole.

Best Wishes to ALL.
 
Rico said:
Like i said. At almost 70 i still can get out of the basement.All these players can do is try their best. If you can name one who is not trying name him.Olympians dont all win gold ,but there still Olympians.
Click to expand...

So true, Rico.
These guys are playing to win not lose.
I mean, come on!

But watch, there will be those who will question everything
from the coaching to the lighting.

Team U.S.A. gets an "A" for effort, NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS.
 
Last edited:
BRussell said:
That's an interesting way to look at it. I completely agree with you about the fundamentals, but here's another way to look at it, that's based on your A-game vs. B-game distinction:

I've been thinking about the difference between short and long races, and why there should be a difference - after all, a long race is made up of many short races, so why should there be a difference?

But I think the difference is that in a long race players like Shane can fire at some shots that might be considered poor choices, but even if he loses that game he gets into stroke and will run a couple of 5-6 packs later. He's willing to sacrifice some points in the short run in order to get into his A game in the long run, in which case he'll almost always win.

In this short-race format you can't sacrifice some games with the goal of getting into your A game. You have to play like every shot is going to win or lose the match, because it could.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting take on Shane's game and you may be on to something. Shooting at flyers just because you know you can outrun it sounds like bad idea to me. This could also be part of his problem transitioning to this short race format. Something tells me a player like Darren Appleton would give each and every rack the same level of respect, regardless of the tournament he is playing in.

What I'm seeing on the screen -- tells me this isn't just a matter of shot selection. There's not a player in the world that won't pick the wrong shot on occasion if they are continually out of line. That's what I'm seeing with Shane. Yeah, he has probably picked the wrong shot a few times but that's what happens when you have to keep picking a shot to begin with in 9 ball. When good players are playing well -- they don't have to pick any shots at all.
 
boogeyman said:
I respectfully disagree with only ONE of your points, BasementDweller.
That is, the MC is about a player's A or B game.
I only say that because it seems like a moot point to bring that up because everyone's game
tends to go down a bit, therefore it's a "wash" in that regard.

Indeed, it's about who can handle to intense pressure the best.
As alluded to, those players with the best fundamentals (in any sport) stand to do better
when pressure (and the game is on the line: and that's the case at the MC where EVERY game counts) is high.

You all know what?
The take away here is that perhaps, just perhaps,
the Europeans have better fundamentals than the Americans.
Anyone ever thought about that?

Obviously, all these players are capable of running racks on that same table at any given time.
It's the simple things done correctly that win. Europeans do that. It's the culture. It's perhaps even
the way the younger players are taught when playing pool.

All these threads on pocket size, crowd noise, and other minutiae have little to do with the nine ball
going into the pocket vis-à-vis good fundamentals
Click to expand...

I think we are in agreement because I respectfully agree with your disagreement.:thumbup:
 
ENGLISH! said:
How one is connected to the cue can & will effect other aspects.

Sometimes making a change in the hands can be very difficult & to be honest, not always worth the change. Sometimes it is sort of a necessity & other times not.

There is no one set of 'fundamentals' other than moving the cue in a straight line & then even that is not a 'fundamental' if it gets on line for contact by other means.

Fundamentals can really be relative to the individual IF they do not break down under pressure & stress.

We are not robots, but instead individuals.

A tucked elbow might suit one's connection to the cue & the type of stroke that they make.

Someone else's connection to the cue & stroke might not fit with a tucked elbow.

To each there own. We are not all cut from the same cookie cutter & should not all be put into the same pigeon hole.

Best Wishes to ALL.
Click to expand...

I agree that their may not be a tried and true set of fundamentals, I still look at it this way:

Say we are all constantly hiking through the woods and always trying to get from point A to point B. Of course in the beginning there are no distinct path in the woods so everybody just goes their own way. But after a while, trails begin to appear and after a little while longer, people figure out that there are some paths that are better than others.

Pool is no different. There are players that have paved the way. In the modern game that is played on fast cloth with lively rails, it's my opinion that we should look no further than Darren Appleton.
 
BasementDweller said:
I agree that their may not be a tried and true set of fundamentals, I still look at it this way:

Say we are all constantly hiking through the woods and always trying to get from point A to point B. Of course in the beginning there are no distinct path in the woods so everybody just goes their own way. But after a while, trails begin to appear and after a little while longer, people figure out that there are some paths that are better than others.

Pool is no different. There are players that have paved the way. In the modern game that is played on fast cloth with lively rails, it's my opinion that we should look no further than Darren Appleton.
Click to expand...

BD,

I'm not so sure those 'adaptations' should be called 'fundamentals'.

As to your analogy. One of the paths by others might have included swimming a small stream but maybe I can't swim. So for me walking a bit up or down stream to where I can wade across would most probably be best for me rather then drowning by taking the path that others before me have taken.

We are individuals no matter how much alike we may be.

Know Thy Self.

Best 2 YOU & All.
 
Last edited:
ENGLISH!,

There are no rivers on a pool table and as humans we have more similarities than we do differences.

But I knew you wouldn't agree. You can feel free to teach those around you to cue like Bustamante or Van Boeing and I'll stick with Appleton.
 
Last edited:
To borrow a bit from Renfro..

Chokesville.. population 5. (4?)

This isn't about gambling, this isn't about long sets and it's not about call-shot 10b. MC is about bringing your game now and every mistake being magnified. The difference between tournament players and gamblers, imho. Also, i think SW is more accustomed to being in a spotlight due to his age, so he handles the pressure well. Or icbw.
 
I really don't have anything to add on this, other than to say that I really enjoyed everyone's analysis -- very interesting stuff and much of it was on point!
 
BasementDweller said:
ENGLISH!,

There are no rivers on a pool table and as humans we have more similarities than we do differences.

But I knee you woukdn't agree. You can feel free to teach those around you to cue like Bustamante or Van Boeing and I'll stick with Appleton.
Click to expand...

BD,

You misunderstand me.

I would not TEACH any individual to cue like either of them.

But then again...

It's like famous golf instructor Butch Harmon has said, 'I may not be able to build a Championship Golf Swing, but IF I am not extremely careful, I KNOW I can ruin one.'

Who says that anyone has to TEACH one HOW to cue. How about just helping one to cue to the best of THEIR ability.

Ben Hogan was not Jack Nicklaus but they were both Great... in their own way...with their own individual golf swings.

Best 2 Ya.

PS There are no jungle PATHS on pool tables either.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top