You can't agree to disagree and then launch a series of counterpoints, that's cheating.
<3 Forgive the line-by-line arguments, I do it because it's easier than retyping anything. I know it comes across as nitpicky dissection of every line. Not my intent, I promise.
Saying that we can agree to disagree does not mean I'm cutting-off my ability to rephrase what I originally stated to make it clear. I did mention that I thought maybe I might've had assumptions in some of my points that were perhaps missed, which would've been my fault, did I not? I took that opportunity to clarify them.
As for the line-by-line dissection, that's exactly what & where I'm coming from. It indeed is nitpicky, pedantic, and escapist in some cases. I'm glad that's not your intent.
I'm getting a defensive vibe here. Don't take it personally. Nothing I say is about you or your posting history.
If I didn't know you better (virtually, anyway), I'd say that's very rich. You normally are very cognizant of these things. The point was that you were giving me the spiel on fundamentals, when you *know* how much of an open advocate I am of proper fundamentals (e.g. my "some of those aiming system guys may be putting too much of their focus in the wrong place" stance) and how I personally use snooker fundamentals. Using fundamentals in a debate with me is a non-starter. Defensive? No, actually I found it funny -- you were ball-peening the side of a battleship and I was just waving hard at you trying to get your attention.
I referenced fundamentals because that's part of my argument. If a snooker player finds a 9 footer easier it's because of A: fundamentals and B: less green.
I think you believe there's a C: ...something like... practicing on a big table has honed his aiming skills until it's now automatic to aim long tough shots correctly. So he's subconsciously tapping into some extra bit of accuracy that normally lies dormant. Is that the thrust of it?
Here again I think you're trying to hit upon a point that I already covered previously. And that point is, UNLESS ONE JUST ENJOYS THE SENSATION of banging balls around aimlessly, one is behooved to practice until noticeable improvements occur. Don't you think that if one that has an established level of accuracy on a 7-footer, suddenly goes to a 9-footer, and finds he/she is missing certain shots that normally he/she would make on the 7-footer, that he/she would try to diagnose the problem, and work on it until they've addressed the issue? Let's take a half-table length straight-in shot. The person practiced on the 7-footer is comfortable with this and nails it the majority of the time. But suddenly, on a 9-footer, he/she finds out a 50% success rate (just an arbitrary figure), and jar it or hang it up the rest of the time. Don't you think it behooves that person to work on that shot to find out what's wrong and fix it? Obviously, fundamentals play a HUGE part in that.
Or is it your contention that I'm saying everyone already has the level of accuracy "embedded" somewhere in the deep recesses of his/her mind, and it "just merely takes droneful practice" to tap into it for that bigger table? If you do, you've misunderstood my points all along.
"Practice" -- to me -- is not throwing balls up on the table and dronefully shooting them in. It's intently working on something. Granted, the droneful practice routine does offer some benefits, like committing to subconscious memory patterns, the feel of the cue in your hands, how the table is performing, etc. But this type of practice is not the type of practice that's used to get used to larger table real estate. Setting up specific shots -- e.g. those longer shots that leverage the larger table real estate -- are the type of practice I'm referring to.
We absolutely agree on this. You miss more and run fewer balls/racks on a bigger table.
Longer shots occur more often, and longer shots are harder.
Why'd you think I believed otherwise? Because I said practice on a 10 footer doesn't improve you any more than practice on a 9 footer? I truly believe that, and here's why.
If 60 yards is the absolute limit if your ability to kick a football, it makes no difference if you try to kick it 100 yards. You're still at the limit of what your body can accomplish. Similarly, if you're unable to make a long straight-in on the 9 footer (even though it's obvious where to aim) then all the practice in the world won't matter on 10 footer. You can set up the same long straight on bertha, spend a day shooting it, and when you step up to a 9 footer... it will still look like a hard shot, and you'll still miss it. Unless a day of practice straightened out the wobbles in your stroke.
I disagree with that last paragraph -- and this is probably getting to the root of where we disagree. My point is FOCUSED practice, not aimlessly hitting that long straight-in shot "until you get it." Focused practice is paying attention to all those nuances in your grip, your bridge hand, how the cue travels, if you are consistently missing the shot to one side (e.g. a slight yaw to one side in the delivery of the cue), etc.
Let me set an example. I love to play snooker, but there are no tables in my area. I have to travel to Carom Cafe in Queens, NY, to be able to play on one (and that's a long haul for me -- about 2 hours). So my level of play is pretty much "settled" on (adjusted to) 9-foot American pool tables. When I *do* get to go to Carom Cafe and play on a snooker table, obviously my "settled level" of accuracy is off -- I miss a LOT of shots. When I see this, I engage in FOCUSED practice, paying much more attention to my fundamentals, readjusting those nuances in my grip, bridge hand, stance, etc., attempting to "re-lock-in" and adjust to the size of the table. I don't just aimlessly bang balls on that snooker table thinking "I'll get it" through osmosis. The focused practice is the key for the adjustment. And the adjustment DOES happen -- after about 30 minutes, I'll start to regain the level of accuracy that I enjoyed on a 9-foot American pool table.
Once I come back from that readjustment experience, when I go to play on a 9-footer, my heightened level of "accuracy awareness" makes that table play tremendously easy. It's almost euphoric. Obviously, that euphoria wears off, and I "settle back into" playing on a 9-footer.
Is that "tapping into abilities that are already there sleeping, waking them up"? M-a-y-b-e. Perhaps. I'm not so sure, though. I think the problem with most folks that do not experience a re-adjustment phase when going to a larger table, is the lack of focused practice. Instead, they throw balls up on the table and shoot them in, without care.
Not to take this into an instruction-advocacy thread, but I think that's the root of the problem right there -- not paying attention to one's weaknesses, and instead trying to "recreate" the same level of potting success and comfort on the larger table real estate -- maybe even eschewing those longer shots so that he/she could shoot the shorter ones, to "experience the established potting success and comfort."
I noticed the pros on the 10-footers don't do that. Instead -- Corey Deuel and Ralph Eckert being good examples -- you'll see them intentionally setting up long shots that take advantage of the proportionally larger table real estate. They don't set up "8 foot shots" -- which can just as easily be setup on the 9-footer. Instead, the key word is proportional -- using the diamonds as markers or whatever. E.g. cue ball first diamond in the kitchen -to- object ball on the foot string type of shot.
Don't get me wrong -- I understand what YOU are trying to say. But I think you're putting too much of the "one's own personal hardwired constraints" into it. Again, not to take this into an instruction-advocacy thread, but I think that's where many get this wrong. Focused practice DOES help one make the transition to larger tables. While there is something to be said of "hardwired abilities" (not everyone has the "it" to be a champion), I think too much is made of that in this type of scenario.
Hope that helps clarify what I'm trying to say? BTW, no offense (nor defense) meant here. Just a meeting o' the minds, 's all.
-Sean
