What Do You Look For in a Pool Instructor

gregcantrall said:
The Outer Limits was a favorite TV show when I was a Yute. My fitness program has me exploring my limits.
I have a simple challenge that is repeatable and of course not a valid test, well because you know some tables have bad rails and the sun's coming up and we'll I can't blame the chalk because none is allowed. Don't forget windage. :shrug 🤷‍♂️
The challenge: Place an object ball on the foot spot. Place the cue ball on the head spot. Kick off the foot rail to pocket the object ball. Simple 🤷
In my world making 3 in a row would warrant the title of, "Kicks Like A Mule" or I guess Kangaroo would be appropriate for the down under crew.
Click to expand...

Wish I had this in my bag of tricks in the old days. When I went in a decently busy bar but nobody would bet water was wet, literally wouldn't play for a seventy-five cent beer, I would put the cue ball on the head spot, object ball on the foot spot. Sometimes I let them bank balls but the usual thing was make the object ball in either foot pocket, without scratching!

The shot isn't a natural scratch just shooting the object ball center pocket but it was amazing how many ways people could find to scratch once they were trying to beat a scratch that wasn't there.

I would just set up the shot like I was killing time and natcherally couldn't make it but maybe one time in five or ten shots. Before long the locals would be getting antsy. "Let me show you how to make that shot." "Well OK, but I bet you a dollar you can't make it either!" Often I would get three or four people betting and trying the shot. Since there would be some misses we were playing for over fifteen dollars a rack when nobody was willing to play me for a seventy-five cent beer.

Once the ice was broken a loser or two often wanted to play "real pool" to get their money back. Prop shots are a great way to get things started if things are slow I have found. People seem to forget you are a stranger when you are all trying the same thing together too.

I wonder how it would work to practice up your shot then take it to the world's pool hall and see how many people can get roped in. Buff has a row of seven foot Diamonds now that this shot would be fun to play on. If I am feeling brave he has a ten footer too. I used to make some people there crazy just trying to pocket a ball. Soon somebody wanted to show me how. I had to explain that the idea wasn't to pocket the ball but to pocket it using a certain system. They never seemed to really believe that!

Hu
 
ShootingArts said:
Wish I had this in my bag of tricks in the old days. When I went in a decently busy bar but nobody would bet water was wet, literally wouldn't play for a seventy-five cent beer, I would put the cue ball on the head spot, object ball on the foot spot. Sometimes I let them bank balls but the usual thing was make the object ball in either foot pocket, without scratching!

The shot isn't a natural scratch just shooting the object ball center pocket but it was amazing how many ways people could find to scratch once they were trying to beat a scratch that wasn't there.

I would just set up the shot like I was killing time and natcherally couldn't make it but maybe one time in five or ten shots. Before long the locals would be getting antsy. "Let me show you how to make that shot." "Well OK, but I bet you a dollar you can't make it either!" Often I would get three or four people betting and trying the shot. Since there would be some misses we were playing for over fifteen dollars a rack when nobody was willing to play me for a seventy-five cent beer.

Once the ice was broken a loser or two often wanted to play "real pool" to get their money back. Prop shots are a great way to get things started if things are slow I have found. People seem to forget you are a stranger when you are all trying the same thing together too.

I wonder how it would work to practice up your shot then take it to the world's pool hall and see how many people can get roped in. Buff has a row of seven foot Diamonds now that this shot would be fun to play on. If I am feeling brave he has a ten footer too. I used to make some people there crazy just trying to pocket a ball. Soon somebody wanted to show me how. I had to explain that the idea wasn't to pocket the ball but to pocket it using a certain system. They never seemed to really believe that!

Hu
Click to expand...
Great tales!! Amazing how gullible people can be, eh? What a great way to suck people in, then do a mind-f*** on them. Brilliant!!
 
Patrick Johnson said:
I didn't apply geometry to the golf swing - I applied it to the result, where it applies no matter what swing (or pool stroke) is used.

You might have a shot at understanding what you read if you weren't in constant attack mode.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
You might have a shot at understanding golf and POOL if you weren't such a narcissistic megalomaniac about everything.
You have no clue about one single thing golf related and so far off base in other things related to pool that it's pathetic.
The other part is that YOUR geometry doesn't work because you don't have a clue what data there is to be used.
Therefore, garbage in=garbage out. Please post all of the factors related to the golf swing and equipment (driver) used in the geometric formula to come to your conclusion. Be precise now. No double talk and beating around the bush with diversionary
tactics to weasel out of it and try to make me look like the dumb one.

I'll say it again, you're clueless. But that's nothing new. You are a good wordsmith
though in putting the onus back on someone else even when wallowing in utter stupidity with a subject you know zero about.
GEOMETRY...the solution to everything in life especially when caught with your pants down, your thumb in your mouth calling out to mommy for help. You are a real trip, Johnson.

Now, to bring things back on track with the subject of this thread...I personally look for an instructor that knows how to use
the vision/eyes to link balls together at specifics as opposed to imaginary contact points, dots, or fractional lines on balls.
I'd like to know the person that Fran Crimi mentioned regarding what balls to hit specifically in a 14.1 rack to open them in a certain way. THAT was GOLDEN!! On second thought, Fran herself would be great!
 
Last edited:
WobblyStroke said:
right about wind, wrong about where he's aiming his shots. The center of his dispersion pattern was well right of a left pin. He's controlling his miss by setting the edge of that dispersion pattern. Priority one is staying out of trouble and not losing a shot left of the green. For Jack, being close to a left pin was a happy accident and a result of him hitting his straight 'miss'. I don't know how many times I can repeat that before you get it.
Click to expand...
As I wrote before, you're comparing apples and oranges when you compare a golf pro's swing preference to a pool player shooting with sidespin to avoid missing on the wrong side.

I have Golf My Way --- both the tape and the book. I followed Jack in the 70's and 80's and had the pleasure of following him around the golf course at Firestone one year, where at times I was as close as 10 feet away from him swinging a club. I think you're exaggerating a bit to make your point. Everyone made more pars back then because they didn't hit the ball as long as they do now. Jack often made spectacular birdies, and his swing is more adaptable then you make it look. You don't become the best in the world for your era by being locked into a fade and making pars. He could draw the ball with the best of them if he wanted to, and his 2-iron shot was as straight as an arrow. As the saying goes...only God and Jack Nicklaus can hit a 2-iron.
 
FranCrimi said:
As I wrote before, you're comparing apples and oranges when you compare a golf pro's swing preference to a pool player shooting with sidespin to avoid missing on the wrong side.

I have Golf My Way --- both the tape and the book. I followed Jack in the 70's and 80's and had the pleasure of following him around the golf course at Firestone one year, where at times I was as close as 10 feet away from him swinging a club. I think you're exaggerating a bit to make your point. Everyone made more pars back then because they didn't hit the ball as long as they do now. Jack often made spectacular birdies, and his swing is more adaptable then you make it look. You don't become the best in the world for your era by being locked into a fade and making pars. He could draw the ball with the best of them if he wanted to, and his 2-iron shot was as straight as an arrow. As the saying goes...only God and Jack Nicklaus can hit a 2-iron.
Click to expand...
The line "If I was ever close to a left pin, it was an accident" is straight from Jack.
He couldn't hit a draw with the best of them--he was so dominant with his fade he didn't try to. When Johnny Miller jokingly had him demo a draw at a clinic he managed a hook that Miller ribbed him for to which Jack responded "What do you expect, I never tried that before". Obv this was in jest but he pretty much always played a fade. But yes, he was likely the very best long iron player of all time...tho the god line is about a 1 iron.

And I get that we've veered far away from where the comparison between pool and golf started, which was with CJ Wiley's comment. The point was that it benefits a player to know which spin is on the ball.
Whether that means being able to control your miss in golf, or be better able to adjust aim and predict ball interactions in pool.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Sure. But it doesn't reduce his misses as CJ claims.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
In pool it probably doesn't given that a player can just as easily learn to aim centerball shots by adjusting more for CIT rather than offsetting that with spin. But in golf it def can.

In previous golf examples we assumed an extremely high level of skill. Even going down to scratch golf and low single digit handicappers, I'd suspect there will be a smaller dispersion for the predictable curved shots rather than an intended str8 shot that can curve in either direction.

Even if you want to argue that the dispersion will be exactly the same, the curver will miss less than the str8 baller....
Recall the driver example Spider mentioned to see how it reduces misses. A curver can aim at the edge of the fairway and have the entire fairway to curve into. The str8 baller aims up the middle and can only miss by half a fairway in either direction. It is far far easier to curve the ball into the full width of a fairway than try to hit it str8 and have only a half width buffer on either side. So ye, the curver will miss less.
 
WobblyStroke said:
It is far far easier to curve the ball into the full width of a fairway than try to hit it str8 and have only a half width buffer on either side. So ye, the curver will miss less.
Click to expand...
OK, you've finally forced me to make a drawing... only yourself to blame. :D

Whether you aim to center your "dispersion group" on the pin (red lines) or to one side (blue lines), it's still the same size "dispersion group" (you haven't cut it in half, only moved it over) - so you still have "a half width buffer on either side" of where you aim it. The only difference is where the center of your "dispersion group" is.

Same is true in pool.

pj
chgo

shot+group.png
 
Patrick Johnson said:
OK, you've finally forced me to make a drawing... only yourself to blame. :D

Whether you aim to center your "dispersion group" on the pin (red lines) or to one side (blue lines), it's still the same size "dispersion group" (you haven't cut it in half, only moved it over) - so you still have "a half width buffer on either side" of where you aim it. The only difference is where the center of your "dispersion group" is.

Same is true in pool.

pj
chgo

View attachment 703050
Click to expand...
patrick
do you notice your red circle is "off the green"?
 
Patrick Johnson said:
OK, you've finally forced me to make a drawing... only yourself to blame. :D

Whether you aim to center your "dispersion group" on the pin (red lines) or to one side (blue lines), it's still the same size "dispersion group" (you haven't cut it in half, only moved it over) - so you still have "a half width buffer on either side" of where you aim it. The only difference is where the center of your "dispersion group" is.

Same is true in pool.

pj
chgo

View attachment 703050
Click to expand...
The example was the fairway one but okay. Not going to bother with a drawing but simply... what is easier? To curve a ball into 30 yards of fairway knowing you won't miss on the other side? Or to try and hit straight and only have 15 yards of fairway on either side of you to miss into and still have a shot that technically hits your target?

As for your green diagram, I'm not sure robots could produce that tight a dispersion. The dispersion is wider than the green to start. The player playing a curve off the edge of the green again has the entire green to hit. The straight baller has less room to work with on either side. He doesn't know which side his miss will be on but can still produce both curves (let alone str8 pushes and pulls). At anything but the pro level, I'd expect his dispersion area to be wider overall....which again, is probably one of the factors considered by pros who ALL play curved shots.
 
WobblyStroke said:
The example was the fairway
Click to expand...
One was, the other was the green...

WobblyStroke said:
By aiming at the hole, too many of his misses would end up off the green (again, this is for a left tucked pin).
Click to expand...
The green makes an easier to understand comparison.

And, by the way, in pool you'd miss all the shots aimed in the green direction, because the target is a pocket, not a fairway or green. What CJ (and you, apparently) doesn't get is that no matter how you shoot the shot in pool, with or without a touch of inside, you're trying to center the "dispersion" on the center of the pocket, so your misses will go to the left and right of center pocket as usual.

That's more than enough of this topic - I hope it clarified some things for some readers (especially TOI believers).

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:
Patrick Johnson said:
Yes - using WobblyStroke's example of the pin being on the edge of it.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
so if you hit "straight " you aim at the pin and miss the green sometimes
if you play for the ball to go right and aim right you are always on the green
is that what your drawing is trying to demonstrate?
 
bbb said:
so if you hit "straight " you aim at the pin and miss the green sometimes
if you play for the ball to go right and aim right you are always on the green
is that what your drawing is trying to demonstrate?
Click to expand...
That's what Wobbly is describing - I'm demonstrating that in golf, like in pool, you miss your target just as often either way (your target being the center of the "dispersion" areas or "shot groups" shown). In golf it may be the right choice, but that doesn't make it "more accurate" - it just means you can safely be as inaccurate as usual. In pool it's simply a wrong choice because there's no "safe" side of the pocket.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
That's what Wobbly is describing - I'm demonstrating that in golf, like in pool, you miss your target just as often either way (your target being the center of the "dispersion" areas or "shot groups" shown). In golf it may be the right choice, but that doesn't make it "more accurate" - it just means you can safely be as inaccurate as usual. In pool it's simply a wrong choice because there's no "safe" side of the pocket.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
Don't lump me into that awful diagram of urs in any way lol. But i'm more than good dropping this detour of a topic as it seems you won't get it anyway.

I'm with you on the pool side tho, I think whether you use a trace of side or simply play centerball and adjust more for CIT, I think you can get pretty much the same results and the style comes down to preference. If often dealing with sticky dirty equipment, I think the value of spin goes up.
 
WobblyStroke said:
Don't lump me into that awful diagram of urs in any way lol. But i'm more than good dropping this detour of a topic as it seems you won't get it anyway.

I'm with you on the pool side tho, I think whether you use a trace of side or simply play centerball and adjust more for CIT, I think you can get pretty much the same results and the style comes down to preference. If often dealing with sticky dirty equipment, I think the value of spin goes up.
Click to expand...
have a red bull
it will give you wings.....😂
 
Patrick Johnson said:
That's what Wobbly is describing - I'm demonstrating that in golf, like in pool, you miss your target just as often either way (your target being the center of the "dispersion" areas or "shot groups" shown). In golf it may be the right choice, but that doesn't make it "more accurate" - it just means you can safely be as inaccurate as usual. In pool it's simply a wrong choice because there's no "safe" side of the pocket.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
thanks for the reply
 
WobblyStroke said:
Don't lump me into that awful diagram of urs in any way lol. But i'm more than good dropping this detour of a topic as it seems you won't get it anyway.
Click to expand...
Correct, he won't get it now or later. He's fixed on something because of total lack of golf skill, knowledge, and strategy. A low handicap player or pro do it for specific reasons to make it more accurate and a high handicap player does it to play the odds
of hitting the fairway instead of the rough, woods, or water. But both are a regular part of the game and scoring lower.

There are other reasons to curve the golf ball beside having more fairway to work with. WIND and COURSE HAZARDS.
There may be a large number of trees on either side of the fairway, sand traps, and water. Each of which can cost a lot
of extra strokes to get out of them and the mere sight of all the trouble can cause puckering A-Hole syndrome with the
nerves tightening on the club during the swing. When that happens, the ball can go in any direction. Again, it's better to
curve it one way or another, whichever way is easiest, than trying to hit the perfect shot like Tiger Woods. But even HE
works the ball one way or the other on tee shots and iron shots. And nerves get to ALL of them and it's evident from some
of the horrible shots they hit.

Does HE know more than PJ? Nah...what the hell is wrong with me. I'm comparing Tiger to the smartest man in the world who
never picked up a golf club but has all the answers. You did the right thing. Get out of this thread.

Save your breath and the tips of your fingers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top