What do you aim at?
- Thread starter JoeyA
- Start date
Colin Colenso said:
This has to be the ALL TIME most RETARDED statement I have ever read on a Billiard forum. It is actually cracking me up and I think you must be on Crack or smoking Pot or living in some metaphysical dimension by yourself.
Yeah, EFREN CAN't POT BAlls, there are 10,000 players out there that will jump up and bet against him in a potting contest.
Well I am off to play Efren some, I didn't think I had a chance of beating him straight up but now that COLIN has explained that he can't pot balls very well, I am probably the overwhelming favorite.
Colin, they have an EDIT section, I suggest you edit your post or your credibility on anything you say has just been shot completely.
Man, I can't get over how RETARDED that statement is and I thought this guy was a little knowledgeable prior to this.
(CMON DRIVERMAKER what do you think of Colin's statement "EFREN CAN'T POT WELL", you must have an opinion on this if you thought the other guys statements were weird.)
Wayne
wayne said:
I think he was referring to snooker players having a more accuracy. I have seen many top pool players fall apart when equipment is very tight. I did see Efrin miss some shots at Turning Stone that I thought he should have made, so didn't other players. His position play and safety play was superior than the rest though.
pete lafond said:
Well join the RETARDED list if you think there are 10,000 snooker players that can shoot with more accuracy than EFREN. Give me a break, his statement is so illogical it cannot be explained sensibly by anyone. I can guarantee you that if EFREN had a POTTING contest against the top 10,000 snooker players for $1,000 each he would come out over 9 MILLION ahead.
Wayne
I took the 10,000 as just an exaggeration.wayne said:
pete lafond said:
Oh, I see, when he ranked him out of the top 10,000, I should have used my psychic powers to determine what he really meant.
Try this on for size from Daryl Peach, former pro snooker player, current pool player, Mosconi cup etc.7.
"Who, in your opinion, was the greatest ever to pick up a cue (snooker, pool, whatever)?"
"Snooker: Ronnie O'Sullivan
Pool: Efren Reyes
Overall: Efren because I saw him play Jimmy White and Ronnie O'Sullivan 6 years ago, at snooker best of 5 for £100 each if I remember rightly: he beat both of them with his pool cue, and he made 3 centuries!! Now that's special."
So, please, do not try to defend the indefensible.
Unless, Efren was using banks, caroms, and masse to play snooker I would say he his quite capable of potting.
I stand by my statement that Colin's comment was the most retarded I have read on here. LOL
Wayne
wayne said:
I like Efrin in 9 ball. No question. We were just talking about pocket accuracy, that's all.
Yes. Efren was a gold medalist in snooker at the Asian Games.LastTwo said:
Played English billiards too.
For the record, Efren told me he can't make money playing snooker in Europe.
Can't beat them, he said.
JoeyInCali said:
Efren going to Europe and beating all of the snooker players would be like Ronnie O'Sullivan going to the Phillipines and beating Efren and everyone else at 9-ball or 15-ball rotation. No matter how talented they are, it's not gonna happen, because each game requires alot of experience in that particular game to be a great, and enough experience would take years to accquire.
Efren being a gold medalist in snooker in the Asian games I think says enough about his pocketing ability.
Colin one thing for you to look at, is that the snooker players don't use sidespin as often as Efren does on a pool table. I've seen many snooker players make a transition to pool and they miss just as often (or more) than most pool pros do.
Anyone practice their aiming on Virtual Pool? My computer is a Mac, so all I can get is the four ball demo version of Virtual Pool 1.
The trace feature is pretty neat. It shows where the object ball will go as you adjust your aim.
It's in three D, so it looks pretty real.
The trace feature is pretty neat. It shows where the object ball will go as you adjust your aim.
It's in three D, so it looks pretty real.
No need to edit it Wayne,wayne said:
People may reasonable debate the number, but I believe their are thousands of very accurate potting snooker players.
I did clarify that pool players have other strengths such as banking, kicks, pool strategy, masses etc, and I would add to that list playing with a lot of side english and probably cut shots as they do these a lot more.
But in straight up potting, such a potting from full angle to 1/4 ball over 4 to 10 feet into a narrow pocket target, which requires very accurate aiming, the snooker players are much better than pool players on average.
Everyone I have talked to that is familiar with both games and has spent a reasonable amount of time watching the best players in both games has agreed that this is the case.
I have watched probably a thousand hours of videos of each game...have you?
Snooker players who try 9-ball may struggle at times, because they are not used to the larger balls and positioning strategies. They're out of their element. But a most good snooker players can become very good 9-ball players quite quickly with a bit of practice.
Take 'The One' as an example. After only a few 9-ball events under his belt he is matching it with many of the best pro 9 ballers. His background was snooker and he was a very good junior, but still quite a way from the pros. Outside the top 1000 I'd guess.
The fact is, in pool, potting accuracy is not as crucial as in snooker. Snooker is also a much bigger money sport, so there is a big depth of very accurate potters in the game. To me it is ridiculous to ignore what can be learned about straight up potting systems that snooker players use.
When it comes to pool potting systems using a lot of english, they may have viability because pool players do play more shots with heavy english than snooker players.
Maybe some players here who have watched a lot of snooker or who have played with some top snooker players could comment on the relative accuracy of snooker players v pool players in regards to straight up potting. That is, shots with little english required.
LastTwo said:
Efren winning the 1987 South East Asian Games does seem quite astounding. But I'd be surprised if there were any good professional snooker players in that very limited field. Was James Wattana playing, does anyone know?
Re: The sidespin, I agree with you on this. It is certainly worth considering the systems pool players have learn to adapt to potting with heavy sidespin.
That said, in straight up potting with up to half a tip of side, who would argue that pool players are more accurate than snooker players? No one I suspect. So why not use their successful methods as a model for accurate potting and aiming?
Colin Colenso said:
In snooker they lag the ball often so that makes pocketing a bit easier. With a spread in the cherries you have alot of shot options and most balls are ran on one side of the table until all the cherries are down. In the rotation part of snooker, quite often the numbered balls remain on their spot with the exception of one or two, so the runout pattern is not difficult since it's almost identical every time. In games like 9-ball the layout is never the same and you are going back and forth across the table more than you are in snooker. In snooker you almost never have to go back and forth across the table since the 2, 3, and 4 are on one side in the "D" the 5 is in the middle, the 6 on the spot and the 7 on the spot below the 6, so you are basically working your way in one direction to run out most of the time. This is why the snooker stroke and the 9-ball stroke are so different. Snooker requires more delicacy and 9-ball requires more stroke. I'm not saying 9-ball is more difficult than snooker, I'm just saying that the games are very different and as a result require a different style and approach to play well. No snooker player stands a chance against the top 9-ball players, with the exception of Marlon Manalo, but he does not adopt the classic snooker stance and stroke, his mechanics are geared much more towards 9-ball.
Why not?
Colin, could you elaborate on some of these methods for those of us w/ no snooker background? From what I am getting from most of your post is that the snooker players are much more intuitive. Is this correct? More "feel" players than system players? Is this what you are saying or am I way off base here?Colin Colenso said:
Gary,GARY LLOYD said:
You are spot on!
Of course, I'm sure different snooker players have certain systematic thoughts about how they find the line, but generally the pros avoid discussions about the physics of alignment. They find thinking about that distracts them and makes them lose accuracy.
What they work on is creating a very still stance and a smooth, precise and repeatable cue action. They can feel very accurately the line of the cue balls travels and they intuitively align this to the object ball such that it looks like they will make the pot.
The idea of lining up off centre and then bringing the cue across would seem absurd to them. If you watch them in real life, they are incredibly smooth and straight in delivery. They look accurate and they are accurate.
LastTwo said:
What do you mean by lag?
Snooker players on average hit many more power shots than pool players. They are very accurate with power. They avoid dribbling balls in whenever possible as it leads to a lot of kicks.
drivermaker
Banned
OK, for Colin and Pete LaFond...here's my rendition of intuitive or feel aiming.
We'll take a cut into the side pocket where the OB is in the center of the table about 18 inches from the pocket. The CB is slightly down table, all in all not a difficult cut. (It doesn't matter what the angle is, it's still feel and intuitive, right?)
It seems like both Pete and Colin see a path from the OB to the pocket. They have in fact BOTH SAID THIS.
HEY FELLAS...WAKE THE FUCK UP...ALL DEBATE ABOUT AIMING SYSTEMS CAN CEASE RIGHT HERE AND NOW BECAUSE THAT IMAGERY IN OF ITSELF IS AN AIMING SYSTEM, IT'S GIVEN DIFFERENT NAMES, BUT IT'S AN AIMING SYSTEM. YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE HELL YOU'RE DOING, WHAT THEY'RE CALLED, OR ENOUGH ABOUT THE SUBJECT OF AIMING!
It can be called the RAILROAD AIMING SYSTEM, because you picture a set of railroad tracks leading to the target pocket. The OB is located directly on or between the set of tracks.
It can also be called the TUNNEL AIMNG SYSTEM, which is similar to the Railroad Aiming System, but instead of railroad tracks, you mentally picture the OB in a tunnel running directly to the target pocket. Some also call it the TROUGH AIMING SYSTEM, because there's an invisible TROUGH to the pocket that the OB moves in.
It can be called the CHAIN BALL AIMING SYSTEM, which is EXACTLY what Colin laid out in his diagram with multiple cue balls in stop action sequence until it struck the OB in another post. You picture in your "minds eye" a chain of balls behind the OB touching or overlapping the next ball in a straight line all the way to the pocket, OR a chain of CB's leading to the OB.
It can also be called the ARROW AIMING SYSTEM because you in essence see an arrow that leads from the CB to the OB, OR the OB to the pocket.
It can also be called the LINE AIMING SYSTEM where you see either a single line or double line running from the OB to the pocket or the CB to OB.
There isn't one goddamn thing that's mystical, intuitive, or touchy-feely about what YOU'RE DOING because they are ALL IDENTIFIED AND NAMED AIMING SYSTEM.
You BOTH are using one of the above, and we can really stop right here.
But I won't.
Colin...you gave me a description of your mystical, intuitive way of getting to the balls and it just has to FEEL right the way you're aiming. And then you pull the trigger.
First of all, to come upon a shot with a cut is the recognition of an ANGLE. This IS NOT mystical. It's MEMORY. YOU EITHER SEE A DEAD STRAIGHT IN SHOT OR AN ANGLE AND HAVE SOME SORT OF IDENTIFICATION PROCESS.
Now you might not know the exact # of degrees in that angle, but subconsciously you view it FROM MEMORY of having struck it many times before and have it classified as "straight in", "almost straight in", "minor", "medium or half ball", " "fairly severe", and "very severe, which would be edge to edge". Am I on track so far?? BTW, this is called THE GEOMETRIC OR ANGLE AIMING SYSTEM. Whether you realilze it or not, you ARE USING AN IDENTIFIED AND NAMED METHOD OF AIMING, ONCE AGAIN. You are seeing a shot that's either straight in or has some degree of angle that you immediately recognize and classify in a corner of your brain.
That having been said, you now get down into the CB with your stance KNOWING that you'll be striking the OB somewhere from the center to somewhere on the edge which is 1 1/8", depending on the severity of the cut. The CB will also strike the OB from the center to the edge which is also 1 1/8" on the face. In doing this, you are now subconsciously using any one of MULTIPLE AIMING SYSTEMS. It could be CONTACT POINT, GHOST BALL, SECTIONAL AIMING, EQUAL AND OPPOSITE CONTACT, LINE AIMING, OVERLAP METHOD, (where you see the CB overlapping the OB) or others that I mentioned earlier.
You may also say at this point...NO DRIVERMAKER... I don't use any of those.
Then, I would have to say at this point that you use the "FIDGET" or "GUESSING GAME METHOD", whereby you get down on the CB and align your cue and keep "FIDGETING" a little left, ...back a little right...back to center...back a little left...until it just looks and feels right. HOWEVER, that is still the CUE STICK AIMING METHOD which is going on a line or point to somewhere on the CB to OB. Again...it's another identifiable and named aiming system.
And if you say that you use NONE of the above...you're totally full of shit and both morons. Because if you say EFREN can't pot balls using an aiming system, I'd hate to see what YOUR ball potting % would be using nothing or something that can't be explained. However, it CAN be explained and I just did it.
And Colin...FUCK SNOOKER. We're POOL PLAYERS, not Snooker. Go to a snooker forum and talk shit there. It's like comparing soft ball to baseball. They sure seem like the same game, but they're NOT...
We'll take a cut into the side pocket where the OB is in the center of the table about 18 inches from the pocket. The CB is slightly down table, all in all not a difficult cut. (It doesn't matter what the angle is, it's still feel and intuitive, right?)
It seems like both Pete and Colin see a path from the OB to the pocket. They have in fact BOTH SAID THIS.
HEY FELLAS...WAKE THE FUCK UP...ALL DEBATE ABOUT AIMING SYSTEMS CAN CEASE RIGHT HERE AND NOW BECAUSE THAT IMAGERY IN OF ITSELF IS AN AIMING SYSTEM, IT'S GIVEN DIFFERENT NAMES, BUT IT'S AN AIMING SYSTEM. YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE HELL YOU'RE DOING, WHAT THEY'RE CALLED, OR ENOUGH ABOUT THE SUBJECT OF AIMING!
It can be called the RAILROAD AIMING SYSTEM, because you picture a set of railroad tracks leading to the target pocket. The OB is located directly on or between the set of tracks.
It can also be called the TUNNEL AIMNG SYSTEM, which is similar to the Railroad Aiming System, but instead of railroad tracks, you mentally picture the OB in a tunnel running directly to the target pocket. Some also call it the TROUGH AIMING SYSTEM, because there's an invisible TROUGH to the pocket that the OB moves in.
It can be called the CHAIN BALL AIMING SYSTEM, which is EXACTLY what Colin laid out in his diagram with multiple cue balls in stop action sequence until it struck the OB in another post. You picture in your "minds eye" a chain of balls behind the OB touching or overlapping the next ball in a straight line all the way to the pocket, OR a chain of CB's leading to the OB.
It can also be called the ARROW AIMING SYSTEM because you in essence see an arrow that leads from the CB to the OB, OR the OB to the pocket.
It can also be called the LINE AIMING SYSTEM where you see either a single line or double line running from the OB to the pocket or the CB to OB.
There isn't one goddamn thing that's mystical, intuitive, or touchy-feely about what YOU'RE DOING because they are ALL IDENTIFIED AND NAMED AIMING SYSTEM.
You BOTH are using one of the above, and we can really stop right here.
But I won't.
Colin...you gave me a description of your mystical, intuitive way of getting to the balls and it just has to FEEL right the way you're aiming. And then you pull the trigger.
First of all, to come upon a shot with a cut is the recognition of an ANGLE. This IS NOT mystical. It's MEMORY. YOU EITHER SEE A DEAD STRAIGHT IN SHOT OR AN ANGLE AND HAVE SOME SORT OF IDENTIFICATION PROCESS.
Now you might not know the exact # of degrees in that angle, but subconsciously you view it FROM MEMORY of having struck it many times before and have it classified as "straight in", "almost straight in", "minor", "medium or half ball", " "fairly severe", and "very severe, which would be edge to edge". Am I on track so far?? BTW, this is called THE GEOMETRIC OR ANGLE AIMING SYSTEM. Whether you realilze it or not, you ARE USING AN IDENTIFIED AND NAMED METHOD OF AIMING, ONCE AGAIN. You are seeing a shot that's either straight in or has some degree of angle that you immediately recognize and classify in a corner of your brain.
That having been said, you now get down into the CB with your stance KNOWING that you'll be striking the OB somewhere from the center to somewhere on the edge which is 1 1/8", depending on the severity of the cut. The CB will also strike the OB from the center to the edge which is also 1 1/8" on the face. In doing this, you are now subconsciously using any one of MULTIPLE AIMING SYSTEMS. It could be CONTACT POINT, GHOST BALL, SECTIONAL AIMING, EQUAL AND OPPOSITE CONTACT, LINE AIMING, OVERLAP METHOD, (where you see the CB overlapping the OB) or others that I mentioned earlier.
You may also say at this point...NO DRIVERMAKER... I don't use any of those.
Then, I would have to say at this point that you use the "FIDGET" or "GUESSING GAME METHOD", whereby you get down on the CB and align your cue and keep "FIDGETING" a little left, ...back a little right...back to center...back a little left...until it just looks and feels right. HOWEVER, that is still the CUE STICK AIMING METHOD which is going on a line or point to somewhere on the CB to OB. Again...it's another identifiable and named aiming system.
And if you say that you use NONE of the above...you're totally full of shit and both morons. Because if you say EFREN can't pot balls using an aiming system, I'd hate to see what YOUR ball potting % would be using nothing or something that can't be explained. However, it CAN be explained and I just did it.
And Colin...FUCK SNOOKER. We're POOL PLAYERS, not Snooker. Go to a snooker forum and talk shit there. It's like comparing soft ball to baseball. They sure seem like the same game, but they're NOT...
F
Fred Agnir
Guest
I think this is a fine answer. One that has no physics or geometry. And you expect that this "feel" helps you make balls. No logic, or diagrams. No way to convey it to another person.Colin Colenso said:
Yet you ask that HH's system be put on a website, that it has logical numbers and geometry to it. I've given finite tangible points, not feelings.
And Colin, many of us have been playing for decades. If you think for one second the fine post you made is something new to us, you are truly lost in your own world. There are some shots in a game of 9-ball or 8-ball (not SNOOKER) that you MUST shoot. You are forced to shoot. Shots that are not in the snooker play book. And some of these shots have no good feelings to anyone. At that moment, it's a good thing many people have been exposed to a system to bail them out.
Fred