What have people been flat out wrong about?
- Thread starter XxMerlinxX
- Start date
WHAT? you mean that aint true?Thats always the excuse i give the wifey when i want a new cue
Unless she plays pool, she never has to know!
Steve
Wow Sean...I guess I have to take offense at your comment, that all I'm out for, is to get some $, via lessons.That's complete and total BS, and anyone who knows me, knows that is absolutely not true. Since you don't know me, you have no way to figure that out, I guess.
On topic...someone with a poor stroke CAN run racks, and have high runs in straight pool. We see that all the time, in the pros. The eccentricities in one pro's stroke wouldn't work for another...that's why they are mostly all different. The key is doing your thing, your way, every time, on every shot. That said, a quality stroke is about learning the "feel" of letting the weight of the cue and timing create the speed of the shot. A large part of that 'feel' is how the tip strikes the CB, and the tactile, sight, and sound, of the accompanying hit, as it's translated to our brains. Helping poolplayers to create their most efficient process is what instruction is all about (for the majority of those who seek such teaching). Without an accurate & repeatable stroke, all the strategic knowledge in the world, will be of limited value, because the player cannot repeat or execute what they "know" how to do.
The tip doesn't make much, if any, physical difference (except in the perception of the user), as long as it's prepared and chalked. The fact that there are literally dozens of tips available, priced from less than $1 to $50+ merely suggests that there is a great demand, due to the public being manipulated into believing that one tip is better than another (again, a subjective interpretation). Do some tips perform better? Only in the eyes and hands of the beholder. One guy loves one tip, and another guy hates the same tip. To the person with the expert stroke...it doesn't matter. Although they certainly will have their personal favorites, he/she can play well with anything. That is what my original statement is based on.
I'll tell you what...I'll come to you, and we'll do a double-blind test. I'll have cues with a dozen different tips on them. I'll blindfold you, and bet you that you cannot tell what tip is what.
Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
On topic...someone with a poor stroke CAN run racks, and have high runs in straight pool. We see that all the time, in the pros. The eccentricities in one pro's stroke wouldn't work for another...that's why they are mostly all different. The key is doing your thing, your way, every time, on every shot. That said, a quality stroke is about learning the "feel" of letting the weight of the cue and timing create the speed of the shot. A large part of that 'feel' is how the tip strikes the CB, and the tactile, sight, and sound, of the accompanying hit, as it's translated to our brains. Helping poolplayers to create their most efficient process is what instruction is all about (for the majority of those who seek such teaching). Without an accurate & repeatable stroke, all the strategic knowledge in the world, will be of limited value, because the player cannot repeat or execute what they "know" how to do.
The tip doesn't make much, if any, physical difference (except in the perception of the user), as long as it's prepared and chalked. The fact that there are literally dozens of tips available, priced from less than $1 to $50+ merely suggests that there is a great demand, due to the public being manipulated into believing that one tip is better than another (again, a subjective interpretation). Do some tips perform better? Only in the eyes and hands of the beholder. One guy loves one tip, and another guy hates the same tip. To the person with the expert stroke...it doesn't matter. Although they certainly will have their personal favorites, he/she can play well with anything. That is what my original statement is based on.
I'll tell you what...I'll come to you, and we'll do a double-blind test. I'll have cues with a dozen different tips on them. I'll blindfold you, and bet you that you cannot tell what tip is what.
Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
Joe:
That's a very good highlighted point.
Folks:
Please keep in mind the rationale for Scott's points; Scott is in the *business* of selling strokes (or more appropriately termed, stroke instruction). It is his business to downplay the role (or, people's perceptions) tips play in the action departed upon the cue ball. I for one do not agree "a tip is tip is a tip" but I do understand the basic rationale Scott is trying to get across -- a proper stroke has much more to do with the action departed upon the cue ball than a tip does. With this I soundly concur. However, there are reasons why there are so many different brands / types / hardness/softness / layered/unlayered / etc. of tips out there -- they do have distinct properties and feel to them.
Like Monstermash, I am also an "A"-level player (e.g. 133-ball high run in straight pool, 7-pack high run in 9-ball) and I certainly do *NOT* agree that "a tip is a tip is a tip." Although I can get two table-lengths of draw with even a house cue, I much prefer a certain type of tip (ElkMaster for me) because of the "feel" it gives me when the cue ball is struck. I personally don't like layered tips (even "Medium" ones) because they feel like I'm hitting the cue ball with a piece of concrete -- and it sounds that way, too! And yes, if someone were to blindfold me, hand me a cue, I line myself up on a table, and someone were to place a cue ball in front of my cue, I *can* tell the difference when I stroke through the cue ball. (I actually use this type of test when I'm trying out cues, so as to avoid "eye candy love" aesthetics interfering with my unbiased opinion on how a cue "hits.")
Anyway, keep in mind these are all opinions; opinions can (and do!) emanate from one's own agenda, such as pool school. Well, "agenda" may be a poor choice of word (apologies to Scott); let me use the word "coloring" instead.
Hope this is helpful,
-Sean
Last edited:
The most common misconception that pops up is the jumping of the cue ball. I have people that jump the cue ball with low bottom of the cue ball stroke. Granted this is usually in the bar and if its a player that has a game and loves the game ill explain it to them but normally I let it slide as it usually doesnt affect the out come.
If the cue ball is on the rail, you can move it our the same distance as the butt of your cue!
Steve
First experience with this rule was 1960 at the Downtown Seattle YMCA with a fellow 10 year old player!
Let's get this straight, once and for all.
Scott:
You know something? You have an AMAZING ability to take things out of context, and blow them out of proportion. Did I *ever* say in my post that "all you're out for, is to get some $, via lessons"? No. What I *did* say, and I quote, is:
Translation: You are in the business of pool school, yes? Isn't it your business to sell instruction to folks to help them achieve that expert stroke you mention in another part of your post? Isn't it also in your business to show people that no amount of equipment changes/upgrades/etc. is going to help them achieve what it is that they want to achieve -- to become a better player? And instead to help the student lay the foundation for reaching one's full potential as a player? And didn't I soundly concur with the point you're trying to make that "it's the stroke, dammit, not the tip?" Did you just gloss over this stuff and only hone-in on what you thought was a rub? Humbly, methinks you might be sensitized to some of the "forum mining for students" storms that've crossed these forums lately, and thus read what you wanted to read out of my post, but completely ignored (or glossed over) the fact that we actually agree on a pivotal point -- that it's the stroke, not the equipment.
OK, here you start to get to the heart of what I was trying to say -- it's all about the "feel." I stand by what I wrote in my original post, and that is with the same make/model/weight cue (all things being precisely equal), a different tip -- especially different construction [layered/non-layered] and different hardness -- *does* translate into a different feel and sound of hit. You mean to tell me noone can tell the difference between a hard and soft tip? And putting "feel" aside because it's subjective as you say, that one can't hear that noticeably different sound?
"The tip doesn't make much, if any, physical difference (except in the perception of the user), as long as it's prepared and chalked." If by physical difference, you mean whether he/she can draw the ball a certain distance, I soundly agree. I've never disagreed with this statement, and you might recall in my post that I can draw the cue ball two table lengths with a house cue. Can I distinguish the hit between a house cue and my personal cue? SURE I CAN! Does the difference between them "bother" me, as it would a person who's so wrapped in "perception" issues that they've bought into our current market's tip marketing, hook, line, and sinker? No. Equipment differences don't bother me -- and I've always maintained that. I adapt. "This is a house cue, and I know it hits thusly based on the 'feel.' No problem, my game is my game regardless." Not, "This is a sucky house cue with not even close to the tip I want. Man, I'm not going to be draw my rock as I would with my playing cue that you won't be able to pry from my cold/dead fingers." I'm not saying I have an expert stroke, Scott, but I *do* get a lot of compliments from folks that my stroke looks smooth, effortless, and "so textbook-correct" (I get these latter exact words from a pro in my area that I play occasionally).
Why aren't you getting my point that we agree on the same thing -- it's the stroke, dammit, not the equipment? And, why aren't you getting my point -- even though you seem to agree with it in one sentence, but then back-pedal in another -- that folks have certain preferences precisely based on "feel"? (Not whether it allows them to draw their rock!) Is it so wrong that folks prefer a tip based on its feel? Or are you saying that these folks need their head examined? (Or worded less tersely, "it's all in your head -- you're thinking about the price tag, and you've taken the market's bait -- so you 'think' there's a difference. Soft Elkmaster or rock-hard layered Kamui -- there's no difference, they feel exactly the same, it's all in your head." Do I read you correctly here?)
Scott, I'm a working man who does 60+ hour work weeks, and I have no time to chase "pride" issues. This is not a pride issue for me, but apparently it appears to be so with you. If I'm going to do any sort of transaction, it's going to be for knowledge transfer, not to satisfy "there, I told you so" pride issues. I'm w-a-y past my roaring 20s where I'd fly across the country just to "prove points." I would expect you to be, as well. Don't waste your money. First, it's ridiculous -- you're going to have a dozen different cues with you (each probably having their own different weight, balance, shafts, and feel -- correct me if I'm wrong), and you expect me to be able to tell you precisely what tip is on that cue? (A more accurate way to conduct a test like this is to have the exact same cue -- make/model/weight/balance/shaft/etc. -- with the *only* difference between being a different tip installed. And even then, it's going to take me a bit to get used to how that particular cue hits before I can embed that cue's feel in my memory banks, before I can even start to distinguish the feel/hit differences between different tips on that same cue. Let's be fair about this, ok?) Second, I'll tell you what -- I try my damnedest to make it out to some of the pool industry's major events when I can (e.g. SBE, DCC). In fact, I'm pretty sure I'll be at the next Turning Stone in August. Why don't we meet at one of these events, and you can show me what it is that you want to show me? The first pitcher of brewskis is on me. Isn't that better than adolescent pursuits of pride issues?
Scott:
You know something? You have an AMAZING ability to take things out of context, and blow them out of proportion. Did I *ever* say in my post that "all you're out for, is to get some $, via lessons"? No. What I *did* say, and I quote, is:
Translation: You are in the business of pool school, yes? Isn't it your business to sell instruction to folks to help them achieve that expert stroke you mention in another part of your post? Isn't it also in your business to show people that no amount of equipment changes/upgrades/etc. is going to help them achieve what it is that they want to achieve -- to become a better player? And instead to help the student lay the foundation for reaching one's full potential as a player? And didn't I soundly concur with the point you're trying to make that "it's the stroke, dammit, not the tip?" Did you just gloss over this stuff and only hone-in on what you thought was a rub? Humbly, methinks you might be sensitized to some of the "forum mining for students" storms that've crossed these forums lately, and thus read what you wanted to read out of my post, but completely ignored (or glossed over) the fact that we actually agree on a pivotal point -- that it's the stroke, not the equipment.
OK, here you start to get to the heart of what I was trying to say -- it's all about the "feel." I stand by what I wrote in my original post, and that is with the same make/model/weight cue (all things being precisely equal), a different tip -- especially different construction [layered/non-layered] and different hardness -- *does* translate into a different feel and sound of hit. You mean to tell me noone can tell the difference between a hard and soft tip? And putting "feel" aside because it's subjective as you say, that one can't hear that noticeably different sound?
"The tip doesn't make much, if any, physical difference (except in the perception of the user), as long as it's prepared and chalked." If by physical difference, you mean whether he/she can draw the ball a certain distance, I soundly agree. I've never disagreed with this statement, and you might recall in my post that I can draw the cue ball two table lengths with a house cue. Can I distinguish the hit between a house cue and my personal cue? SURE I CAN! Does the difference between them "bother" me, as it would a person who's so wrapped in "perception" issues that they've bought into our current market's tip marketing, hook, line, and sinker? No. Equipment differences don't bother me -- and I've always maintained that. I adapt. "This is a house cue, and I know it hits thusly based on the 'feel.' No problem, my game is my game regardless." Not, "This is a sucky house cue with not even close to the tip I want. Man, I'm not going to be draw my rock as I would with my playing cue that you won't be able to pry from my cold/dead fingers." I'm not saying I have an expert stroke, Scott, but I *do* get a lot of compliments from folks that my stroke looks smooth, effortless, and "so textbook-correct" (I get these latter exact words from a pro in my area that I play occasionally).
Why aren't you getting my point that we agree on the same thing -- it's the stroke, dammit, not the equipment? And, why aren't you getting my point -- even though you seem to agree with it in one sentence, but then back-pedal in another -- that folks have certain preferences precisely based on "feel"? (Not whether it allows them to draw their rock!) Is it so wrong that folks prefer a tip based on its feel? Or are you saying that these folks need their head examined? (Or worded less tersely, "it's all in your head -- you're thinking about the price tag, and you've taken the market's bait -- so you 'think' there's a difference. Soft Elkmaster or rock-hard layered Kamui -- there's no difference, they feel exactly the same, it's all in your head." Do I read you correctly here?)
Scott, I'm a working man who does 60+ hour work weeks, and I have no time to chase "pride" issues. This is not a pride issue for me, but apparently it appears to be so with you. If I'm going to do any sort of transaction, it's going to be for knowledge transfer, not to satisfy "there, I told you so" pride issues. I'm w-a-y past my roaring 20s where I'd fly across the country just to "prove points." I would expect you to be, as well. Don't waste your money. First, it's ridiculous -- you're going to have a dozen different cues with you (each probably having their own different weight, balance, shafts, and feel -- correct me if I'm wrong), and you expect me to be able to tell you precisely what tip is on that cue? (A more accurate way to conduct a test like this is to have the exact same cue -- make/model/weight/balance/shaft/etc. -- with the *only* difference between being a different tip installed. And even then, it's going to take me a bit to get used to how that particular cue hits before I can embed that cue's feel in my memory banks, before I can even start to distinguish the feel/hit differences between different tips on that same cue. Let's be fair about this, ok?) Second, I'll tell you what -- I try my damnedest to make it out to some of the pool industry's major events when I can (e.g. SBE, DCC). In fact, I'm pretty sure I'll be at the next Turning Stone in August. Why don't we meet at one of these events, and you can show me what it is that you want to show me? The first pitcher of brewskis is on me. Isn't that better than adolescent pursuits of pride issues?
I can beat Lee Holt.
sfleinen:
I know I should prolly just butt out, but I see why scott got upset:
I figure scott's been telling people for years they can accomplish anything they want on the pool table, if they have the proper drive. And equipment is no excuse for failure to pull it off, whether it's running 5 racks or just drawing 5 feet. That's why he is quick to call someone out if they try to say a tip is responsible for their good or bad playing.
You probably see it the same way and agree on this point.
Based on this understanding, what you I think you were TRYING to say is:
"Scott's experience as an instructor colors the way he views equipment in general, and that's why he (maybe subconsciously, with no bad intent) automatically downplays the role of equipment"
But the way it comes across is:
"Scott's willing to say something he secretly doesn't believe (i.e. that the tip is meaningless) in order to sell a few more lessons... because if people start believing they can play better with the right equipment, they'll buy equipment instead of his lessons".
Something about the way you phrased it made scott sound shady when he isn't. But I don't think you meant any harm and it sounds like you both agree.
I know I should prolly just butt out, but I see why scott got upset:
I figure scott's been telling people for years they can accomplish anything they want on the pool table, if they have the proper drive. And equipment is no excuse for failure to pull it off, whether it's running 5 racks or just drawing 5 feet. That's why he is quick to call someone out if they try to say a tip is responsible for their good or bad playing.
You probably see it the same way and agree on this point.
Based on this understanding, what you I think you were TRYING to say is:
"Scott's experience as an instructor colors the way he views equipment in general, and that's why he (maybe subconsciously, with no bad intent) automatically downplays the role of equipment"
But the way it comes across is:
"Scott's willing to say something he secretly doesn't believe (i.e. that the tip is meaningless) in order to sell a few more lessons... because if people start believing they can play better with the right equipment, they'll buy equipment instead of his lessons".
Something about the way you phrased it made scott sound shady when he isn't. But I don't think you meant any harm and it sounds like you both agree.
When I started bar leagues as a 3, the 6 on the team coached me and said "I'd put left on this, but since you're right handed you need to use right english." After the match I came back to make sure I heard him correctly, and he went on explaining how left handed players left and right english is the reverse of right handed players.
thankfully I knew better, I didn't try to argue with him. It's one of the priceless memories that'll always give me a smile.
thankfully I knew better, I didn't try to argue with him. It's one of the priceless memories that'll always give me a smile.
one thing people are flat out wrong about - that league players don't know s*it and we are all bangers. now i'm only a good c and maybe a weak b on my good days but i know more than a little. and so do a lot of people i shoot with in both bca and apa. i've said it before and i'll say it again i've been around a little bit and i guarantee i personally know more than a few apa players you don't want to treat lightly - yes some sandbaggers, some not. and in my bca division there a few guys who are flat out filthy. some of us just play league because we like it - not because we suck.
one other thing people are wrong about - the cue, the type of tip, and type of chalk make any REAL difference. if you have a stroke you can use anything. the other things just make it easier. if any one type of those things made a real difference EVERY pro would only use that kind and we would all follow suit.
one other thing people are wrong about - the cue, the type of tip, and type of chalk make any REAL difference. if you have a stroke you can use anything. the other things just make it easier. if any one type of those things made a real difference EVERY pro would only use that kind and we would all follow suit.
CreeDo! Post of the day, my friend. Thank you for inserting yourself as a bit of moderator, and showing that both Scott and I are trying to say the same thing.
Yes, I did mean to say what you wrote in the "TRYING to say" quote -- "it's in his business to say..." actually was intended to mean "his experience as an instructor may be colored to say...". That really was in my mind's eye from the outset (honest!), but perhaps left an open window to be interpreted the wrong way. It was just plain editorializing with no intention to imply any shadiness at all. Although methinks Scott might be a little sensitized to some of the past threads, I *do* openly apologize to Scott for not closing the window for misinterpretation.
Tried to rep you for this great post, but alas, I got the very V.D.-esque, "you must spread it around before you can give it to this user again."
-Sean
Yes, I did mean to say what you wrote in the "TRYING to say" quote -- "it's in his business to say..." actually was intended to mean "his experience as an instructor may be colored to say...". That really was in my mind's eye from the outset (honest!), but perhaps left an open window to be interpreted the wrong way. It was just plain editorializing with no intention to imply any shadiness at all. Although methinks Scott might be a little sensitized to some of the past threads, I *do* openly apologize to Scott for not closing the window for misinterpretation.
Tried to rep you for this great post, but alas, I got the very V.D.-esque, "you must spread it around before you can give it to this user again."
-Sean
"Touching 3 rails" avoids ball-in-hand?
Folks:
Back on track...
Recently found myself having dinner and some brewskis in a bar that hosts varying leagues, as well as being a Friday-night hangout for local bangers. In other words, a mixed crowd. Common question here when putting your quarters up on the bar-box is, "What rules do you want to play -- house rules, or league rules?" (They are, of course, referring mostly to the ball-in-hand and call-pocket -- not call-shot -- rules inherent in league rules.)
Got on the bar-box and was owning it for a while (playing league rules as requested by the guy who challenged me), when I realize this guy was just a banger who "thought" he knew league rules. When I safed him where he had to kick his way out of it, he smashes the cue ball around the table -- not hitting a single ball. I go to pick up the cue ball as my BIH reward, and he sternly stops me, saying "the cue ball touched three rails -- no scratch! The cue ball stays where it is!"
I looked at him quizzically, not understanding what he was getting at, but a couple of his buddies said "yeah, those are the rules here -- as long as the cue ball hits at least three rails, it's not a scratch!"
I quickly relinquished the table and got the h*ll out of there!
-Sean
Folks:
Back on track...
Recently found myself having dinner and some brewskis in a bar that hosts varying leagues, as well as being a Friday-night hangout for local bangers. In other words, a mixed crowd. Common question here when putting your quarters up on the bar-box is, "What rules do you want to play -- house rules, or league rules?" (They are, of course, referring mostly to the ball-in-hand and call-pocket -- not call-shot -- rules inherent in league rules.)
Got on the bar-box and was owning it for a while (playing league rules as requested by the guy who challenged me), when I realize this guy was just a banger who "thought" he knew league rules. When I safed him where he had to kick his way out of it, he smashes the cue ball around the table -- not hitting a single ball. I go to pick up the cue ball as my BIH reward, and he sternly stops me, saying "the cue ball touched three rails -- no scratch! The cue ball stays where it is!"
I looked at him quizzically, not understanding what he was getting at, but a couple of his buddies said "yeah, those are the rules here -- as long as the cue ball hits at least three rails, it's not a scratch!"
I quickly relinquished the table and got the h*ll out of there!
-Sean
Thanks sf. Y'all are cool in my book. I don't care what all those other guys say about you.
meaning, most people don't get it and use it properly, or you think the whole thing is BS?
I think mostly it's meant for 3 cushion, and overkill for a pool table. 1 and 2 rail kicks will cover 95-99% of the kicks on a pool table. When you have to go 3 rails it's often some weird situation where you have to shoot into the first rail less than a foot away (which somehow makes it harder to visualize/judge)
meaning, most people don't get it and use it properly, or you think the whole thing is BS?
I think mostly it's meant for 3 cushion, and overkill for a pool table. 1 and 2 rail kicks will cover 95-99% of the kicks on a pool table. When you have to go 3 rails it's often some weird situation where you have to shoot into the first rail less than a foot away (which somehow makes it harder to visualize/judge)
Huh? Are you saying it doesnt work? well if thats what you are saying, there is a local guy at the pool room that will gladly gamble on 2 or 3 rail kicks. I just learned a little bit about the diamond system a few months ago, and it may not be 100% foolproof, but it is way better than just eyeballing it and guessing. Dont get me wrong, I was decent at just eyeballing a kick for years, but after learning the basics of the diamond system, I no longer eyeball it, Im counting diamonds.
Joe
Thanks sf. Y'all are cool in my book. I don't care what all those other guys say about you.
meaning, most people don't get it and use it properly, or you think the whole thing is BS?
I think mostly it's meant for 3 cushion, and overkill for a pool table. 1 and 2 rail kicks will cover 95-99% of the kicks on a pool table. When you have to go 3 rails it's often some weird situation where you have to shoot into the first rail less than a foot away (which somehow makes it harder to visualize/judge)
CreeDo,
It's not that "the whole thing is BS", but its value is usually highly over-rated. Every "system" lesson should begin with: Here is a method that will help you get in the ballpark for the shot. The granularity is not fine enough to predict the outcome with sufficient precision to guarantee success, and there are too many variables which are not accounted for .
But many proponents say things like: You must aim at this spot on the rail; or if you hit the rail here, you will always hit the third cushion here. That's BS.
Mark
"the cue ball touched three rails -- no scratch! The cue ball stays where it is!"
I looked at him quizzically, not understanding what he was getting at, but a couple of his buddies said "yeah, those are the rules here -- as long as the cue ball hits at least three rails, it's not a scratch!"
I quickly relinquished the table and got the h*ll out of there!
-Sean
Yea, 4 rails with the cue ball counts as a made shot and 5 rails means an automatic win. I can't believe you have never played these rules before. You must not be much of a pool shooter then!
