You either shoot straight or you don't...

[CreeDo]

ah, I follow you now. Yeah if someone's already at low pro level... I dunno what instructor could get them to high pro level. I dunno if one can. I surely wouldn't mess with their stroke unless most of their runs end on a miss.

Something that I've heard pointed out is that... even if you don't need to be a pro to instruct, and even if some pros are better at teaching than playing... you can't teach what you don't know.

If an instructor doesn't know how to be a top level pro, I dunno if he can get our chickenwinged low level pro there.

 

[searcyD]

WBM, I would agree that with the right instruction, some of them guys might have gotten further up the mountain. Nonetheless, I would still maintain that no one but the player himself can find their sweet spot, or ideal setup.

What instructor was going to tell Shannon Dalton or Niels Feijen to shoot with the cue off to one side of their head? Which instructor was going to tell Bustamonte that that windmill stroke was maybe not such a good idea? What instructor was going to tell Buddy Hall he gets down too low over the cue, or holds it too close to the end of the butt? Was there a instructor out there that told Mosconi that he stood too upright or shot too fast (no SPF there ? Is there an instructor out there that could have stopped Cowboy Jimmy Moore from using that pretty slip stroke? How many BCA instructors would have told Greenleaf and Hoppe and McCready that that sidearm chicken wing stroke was no good? So tell me: which is the one true path and who is teaching it?

I see students out there all the time who complete their course of instruction with some well-known name and all I see are guys who are setting up and shooting and looking exactly like the instructor. IOW, the instructor has shown them what works for the instructor, as if that *must* work and be optimal for others. Well, no doubt in some cases it does and is. But for many, it dan't. An instructor cannot just cookie cut students in their own image, whether it's a certain stance, a grip, a head position, a follow through or a pause, because -- as one well-known poster here likes to wisely say: it's up to each man to find his own salvation.

Lou Figueroa

nice post (can't post two words)

 

[lfigueroa]

nice post (can't post two words)

Thanks. (I know the feeling

Lou Figueroa

 

[argonath]

conspiracy theory?

To pocket balls correctly, they must fall into the pocket and remain there. Doesn't matter how they got there.

Aiming systems are valuable for people just learning or for people who happen to be struggling that day with their aim... though this is usually a stroke problem not an aim problem. I only use an aiming system if it's a very long and very tough cut that I just can't seem to visualize.

If you get a straight stroke and you are feeling it, consciously aiming barely plays a part in it. It's when you are consciously aiming when you mess up... play out of your mind... literally.

As a pool shooter, I find that when I miss shots, its not because of aim, its because of stroke.

The parallel is putting in golf. You can learn from practice to see the line very quickly... but being able to swing a perfect pendulum with your arms to hit the ball down the link you want is, and will always be, an inexact science based on practice.

Look at the number 2 player in the world. For YEARS he had trouble making 3-5 foot putts. He was below the average player on his percentages, and it probably cost him 10 or more tournament wins over his lifetime (Phil Mickelson).

Some people can see shots, and formulate the hand-eye coordination naturally... but even then they will miss on occasion ones they shouldnt.

And others... have to create a mechanical timing rhythm that probably makes a higher percentage, but makes them look like robots.

I think in the end you cant learn to dwell on the misses, but keep practice so that your hand-eye coordination and visualization will be as close to in synch as humanly possible for that person.

 

[argonath]

I agree with 1on1, and Celtic, on this. You don't aim in pool playing because there is nothing to aim with. It's like a shotgun. You don't aim a shotgun, you point it. When you point it in the right direction, just like in pool, you hit the target. Professionals know this. They've spent years honing their art and can not only hit the desired contact point on the object ball, but add english to as well. A combination that frustrates the hell out of most of us.
These various aiming systems we see bandied about are nothing more than gimmicks and in my opinion should not be entertained by the aspiring poolplayer. The best instructors you'll ever have are the guys that hang around your poolhall. And if you want to learn faster, gamble.

Isnt it funny... what you said here in relation to pokers rise in the last few years.

There has been only 1 professional win the WSOP in a decade... and most of them are ousted long before the final table.

These pros have books, and techniques, and strategies etc..., but most of the time when they are beat by someone, those guys are amateurs who dont follow fundamental techniques.

It seems that having a natural eye and stroke, and NERVE will make you a living. But it takes RISK to win the BIG games and prizes, and most who make a living have honed OUT their ability to risk instead for percentage play.

 

[Rich93]

....
Shooting straight is RELATIVE. For some it might mean being able to run a rack of nine ball or to run a century in straight pool or even less.
....
JoeyA

I know the accuracy of this line is unimportant to the point you are making, but I hope you're not saying that running a rack of nine ball is on the same level as running 100 in straight pool.

Since straight pool isn't played much these days, many might not know that running a rack of nine ball is actually similar in difficulty to running about 20 in straight pool.

 

[JoeyA]

I know the accuracy of this line is unimportant to the point you are making, but I hope you're not saying that running a rack of nine ball is on the same level as running 100 in straight pool.

Since straight pool isn't played much these days, many might not know that running a rack of nine ball is actually similar in difficulty to running about 20 in straight pool.

Of course not Rich.
JoeyA

 

[ShootingArts]

was gonna send you a private note with rep

WBM, I would agree that with the right instruction, some of them guys might have gotten further up the mountain. Nonetheless, I would still maintain that no one but the player himself can find their sweet spot, or ideal setup.

What instructor was going to tell Shannon Dalton or Niels Feijen to shoot with the cue off to one side of their head? Which instructor was going to tell Bustamonte that that windmill stroke was maybe not such a good idea? What instructor was going to tell Buddy Hall he gets down too low over the cue, or holds it too close to the end of the butt? Was there a instructor out there that told Mosconi that he stood too upright or shot too fast (no SPF there ? Is there an instructor out there that could have stopped Cowboy Jimmy Moore from using that pretty slip stroke? How many BCA instructors would have told Greenleaf and Hoppe and McCready that that sidearm chicken wing stroke was no good? So tell me: which is the one true path and who is teaching it?

I see students out there all the time who complete their course of instruction with some well-known name and all I see are guys who are setting up and shooting and looking exactly like the instructor. IOW, the instructor has shown them what works for the instructor, as if that *must* work and be optimal for others. Well, no doubt in some cases it does and is. But for many, it dan't. An instructor cannot just cookie cut students in their own image, whether it's a certain stance, a grip, a head position, a follow through or a pause, because -- as one well-known poster here likes to wisely say: it's up to each man to find his own salvation.

Lou Figueroa

Lou,

I was just going to send you a private note with some rep but I'll post instead. I have noticed you are making some extremely good posts recently.

Hu

 

[lfigueroa]

As a pool shooter, I find that when I miss shots, its not because of aim, its because of stroke.

The parallel is putting in golf. You can learn from practice to see the line very quickly... but being able to swing a perfect pendulum with your arms to hit the ball down the link you want is, and will always be, an inexact science based on practice.

Look at the number 2 player in the world. For YEARS he had trouble making 3-5 foot putts. He was below the average player on his percentages, and it probably cost him 10 or more tournament wins over his lifetime (Phil Mickelson).

Some people can see shots, and formulate the hand-eye coordination naturally... but even then they will miss on occasion ones they shouldnt.

And others... have to create a mechanical timing rhythm that probably makes a higher percentage, but makes them look like robots.

I think in the end you cant learn to dwell on the misses, but keep practice so that your hand-eye coordination and visualization will be as close to in synch as humanly possible for that person.

IMO, the missing can stem from a lot of things. So I think the answer is to try and look at these misses in a different light -- like they're whispering something to you. If you do that what you might hear is the game telling you that you don't know the shot as well as you thought you did, and/or, that you have a flaw in your mechanics that's just manifested itself. I like to look at misses as signposts the game puts out there for me, as I putter along trying to figure out my way up the mountain. IOW, misses are the game's way of quietly telling a player what they need to work on so that eventually they'll have the tools and skills to make it further up the peak.

When a hanger is blown, I think it's best to try and remember it. Not only the shot setup, but the position that was being attempted and whether an over-cut or undercut was involved. It's also worth remembering where the cue ball ended up. Then, during the next practice session, it's a good idea to set the shot up and practice it.

Usually what I've found when I miss an easy one is that the position play I was trying to achieve had something to do with the miss. Maybe I was unsure how the cue ball would react, or I was uncomfortable shooting the shot at that particular speed, or the cue ball may have been in a spot that required making a bridge that I don't use frequently. Or it could be something else. Over time I've corrected several fundamental flaws in my game, all because of: missing the easy ones.

I guess I like to consider the misses the game's way of helping me... you just have to quiet down long enough to hear the advice, instead of howling at the sky

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

Lou,

I was just going to send you a private note with some rep but I'll post instead. I have noticed you are making some extremely good posts recently.

Hu

Thanks, Hu. That means a lot, coming from a respected poster such as yourself.

Lou Figueroa

 

[jbravo2984]

my take on these aiming systems is... anyone using a predetor shaft cant feel the shots. u cant really through the balls in the holes easly. u need a aiming system.

Predator shafts "throw" the ball more than most shafts on the market. Throw is due to english placed on the CB. THROW is the reason why players who don't use one, and have played for years without one, can't get used to one. Because when applying english to throw (not through) a ball in a particular direction, they'll apply the same amount of english, but the predator shafts will typically cause the ball to throw too wide on the cut shot. I've seen this time and time again from people who try to use my cue that don't typically shoot with a Pedator shaft. You're way off here.

 

[Williebetmore]

Nonetheless, I would still maintain that no one but the player himself can find their sweet spot, or ideal setup.


IOW, the instructor has shown them what works for the instructor, as if that *must* work and be optimal for others. Well, no doubt in some cases it does and is. But for many, it dan't. An instructor cannot just cookie cut students in their own image, whether it's a certain stance, a grip, a head position, a follow through or a pause, because -- as one well-known poster here likes to wisely say: it's up to each man to find his own salvation.

Lou Figueroa

LF,
Just saw this thread again (I don't have much time for AZB nowadays), thought I would respond to the 2 points you note above.

I think most instructors would agree with your first point that it is up to the student to make it or break it; though I doubt they would think the student should just try to figure out every aspect of grip, bridge, setup, and stroke on their own...that is the path taken by most champions, but countless others have failed that way.

On your second point, I think you misunderstand what the instructors are trying to accomplish by recommending orthodox technique. It would be silly to think that these instructors believe there is only one way to do something; most pro's ARE unorthodox. There is lots of room for individual preference in the teachings of the top instructors that I know; but only for certain facets if the student hopes to avoid roadblocks.

I think you are doing an injustice to the top instructors who are only trying to present orthodox technique in the hope of speeding up the progress of the students. It is a damn tough and lengthy process with or without orthodox technique; there is unfortunately NO "shortcut" or magic bullet - its a very hard truth.

If your suggestion is for players to continue to figure everything out themselves, and imitate the unorthodoxies of the masters (which will be nearly impossible for them), then pool will continue to be the domain of the lucky or talented few who navigate the maze and finally achieve the incredible precision required to perform at a top level. If top instruction was more widely available, pool would definitely be more popular and less discouraging. As you well know, pool is much more fun to play well than to play poorly.

Mark Wilson addresses this entire subject in extreme detail in his upcoming book; so I will delay any further discussion on this area until after it is published. Let's just say it is a thorough examination of the subject that might significantly change your view.

I will also offer my opinion that following the orthodox principles presented by Mark, Jerry B., or Scott will allow ANY player to reach a low professional level, IF they have the desire and fortitude to spend the almost countless hours it takes even with orthodoxy. I also think that if you are just trying to emulate the masters unorthodoxies, then you may not succeed no matter how hard you try. It is, as you say, all up to the player...but why not try to improve your chances by using orthodox techniques (defined as fewest planes of motion, fewest moving parts, easiest to reproduce, more pressure resistant).

Probably won't read AZB for awhile (and probably would not have responded if it had been anyone other than a respected poster such as yourself), but I always enjoy your posts; and wish I had the opportunity to meet you (someone said you were at DCC, but I never figured out your identity).

 

[peteypooldude]

A lot of people can shoot straight but cant beat anybody.That is just 1 piece of the puzzle.Strategy and using good reasoning on shot selection is also crucial in winning

 

[Philthepockets]

use english when you need it.
nothing wrong with that.
amateurs need to learn how to run out play the right angles thats what pool is about.
learn that and to control white boy you will play just fine.
dont worry about some magic aiming system there is not one.
get the cue ball on a a string most important thing in pool.

Now you've gone and done it, you let the cat out of he bag.

 

[lfigueroa]

LF,
Just saw this thread again (I don't have much time for AZB nowadays), thought I would respond to the 2 points you note above.

I think most instructors would agree with your first point that it is up to the student to make it or break it; though I doubt they would think the student should just try to figure out every aspect of grip, bridge, setup, and stroke on their own...that is the path taken by most champions, but countless others have failed that way.

On your second point, I think you misunderstand what the instructors are trying to accomplish by recommending orthodox technique. It would be silly to think that these instructors believe there is only one way to do something; most pro's ARE unorthodox. There is lots of room for individual preference in the teachings of the top instructors that I know; but only for certain facets if the student hopes to avoid roadblocks.

I think you are doing an injustice to the top instructors who are only trying to present orthodox technique in the hope of speeding up the progress of the students. It is a damn tough and lengthy process with or without orthodox technique; there is unfortunately NO "shortcut" or magic bullet - its a very hard truth.

If your suggestion is for players to continue to figure everything out themselves, and imitate the unorthodoxies of the masters (which will be nearly impossible for them), then pool will continue to be the domain of the lucky or talented few who navigate the maze and finally achieve the incredible precision required to perform at a top level. If top instruction was more widely available, pool would definitely be more popular and less discouraging. As you well know, pool is much more fun to play well than to play poorly.

Mark Wilson addresses this entire subject in extreme detail in his upcoming book; so I will delay any further discussion on this area until after it is published. Let's just say it is a thorough examination of the subject that might significantly change your view.

I will also offer my opinion that following the orthodox principles presented by Mark, Jerry B., or Scott will allow ANY player to reach a low professional level, IF they have the desire and fortitude to spend the almost countless hours it takes even with orthodoxy. I also think that if you are just trying to emulate the masters unorthodoxies, then you may not succeed no matter how hard you try. It is, as you say, all up to the player...but why not try to improve your chances by using orthodox techniques (defined as fewest planes of motion, fewest moving parts, easiest to reproduce, more pressure resistant).

Probably won't read AZB for awhile (and probably would not have responded if it had been anyone other than a respected poster such as yourself), but I always enjoy your posts; and wish I had the opportunity to meet you (someone said you were at DCC, but I never figured out your identity).

WBM, I am not advocating people be unorthodox for the sake of being unorthodox. Nor am I suggesting that they simply emulate any given pro for the sake of doing that. My point is that each player mush find all the little peculiarities that make them personally a better player. And to do that, they must sometimes (often) throw out orthodoxy. That was the point I was trying to illustrate by citing the styles of different pros.

Take almost any given issue concerning pool and most players will discover that they need to find and develop their own version of it. That can be where the cue is in relation to their chin, or what the right bridge or grip is, or whether they shoot better with their forearm hanging perpendicular to the floor, or maybe they get much better results if they're a little forward (or back) of perpendicular.

I have great respect for Mark as a teacher and look forward to reading his book. I have personally referred several folks to go to him for lessons. And here in the St. Louis area, I've gotten to see and meet several of his students. Many of them, I can tell are Mark Wilson students as soon as they come to the table and setup for their first shot -- they all look the same. And though I know Mark has undoubtedly taught them a lot of great stuff, I'm not so sure that the cookie-cut part is such good thing.

Lou Figueroa

 

[sfleinen]

WBM, I am not advocating people be unorthodox for the sake of being unorthodox. Nor am I suggesting that they simply emulate any given pro for the sake of doing that. My point is that each player mush find all the little peculiarities that make them personally a better player. And to do that, they must sometimes (often) throw out orthodoxy. That was the point I was trying to illustrate by citing the styles of different pros.

Take almost any given issue concerning pool and most players will discover that they need to find and develop their own version of it. That can be where the cue is in relation to their chin, or what the right bridge or grip is, or whether they shoot better with their forearm hanging perpendicular to the floor, or maybe they get much better results if they're a little forward (or back) of perpendicular.

I have great respect for Mark as a teacher and look forward to reading his book. I have personally referred several folks to go to him for lessons. And here in the St. Louis area, I gotten to see and meet several of his students. Many of them, I can tell are Mark Wilson students as soon as they come to the table and setup for their first shot -- they all look the same. And though I know Mark has undoubtedly taught them a lot of great stuff, I'm not so sure that the cookie-cut part is such good thing.

Lou Figueroa

Lou:

Post after post, if you keep bringing "cookies" into this, "cookie man" is going to come after you! Maybe "CTE" stands for "Cookie Template Expansion"?

-Sean

 

[JesseAllred]

aim for the stars!

In my experience aiming methods are for practice. And only when you are first starting out and need to program the muscle memory, or when a shot is giving you trouble and you can't "see" it. Otherwise it all needs to be subconscious and automatic. The players who are aiming while competing are missing the point.

 

[Williebetmore]

WBM, I am not advocating people be unorthodox for the sake of being unorthodox. Nor am I suggesting that they simply emulate any given pro for the sake of doing that. My point is that each player mush find all the little peculiarities that make them personally a better player. And to do that, they must sometimes (often) throw out orthodoxy. That was the point I was trying to illustrate by citing the styles of different pros.

Take almost any given issue concerning pool and most players will discover that they need to find and develop their own version of it. That can be where the cue is in relation to their chin, or what the right bridge or grip is, or whether they shoot better with their forearm hanging perpendicular to the floor, or maybe they get much better results if they're a little forward (or back) of perpendicular.

I have great respect for Mark as a teacher and look forward to reading his book. I have personally referred several folks to go to him for lessons. And here in the St. Louis area, I gotten to see and meet several of his students. Many of them, I can tell are Mark Wilson students as soon as they come to the table and setup for their first shot -- they all look the same. And though I know Mark has undoubtedly taught them a lot of great stuff, I'm not so sure that the cookie-cut part is such good thing.

Lou Figueroa

LF,
Cool, thanks for responding so soon so I could read it.

I think that no one should be considered an official "student" of an instructor without 8 to 10 lessons over at least a 2 year period (with appropriate regular and focused practice in between lessons). The power of the method is only obtained with such dedication.

With only a lesson or two and irregular practice; there is no stroke tip, no grip, no stance, no setup that will provide the "casual" student with anything other than modest improvement (which of course he may be happy with).

Unfortunately the majority of students probably fall into the "casual" designation; it is a tough row to hoe.

As I've said, what you perceive as "cookie cutter" set-ups may actually contain quite a bit of individual variation - the details and differences are quite fine (though I'm quite doubtful there are any top instructors who encourage a Keith McCready inside elbow - but Keith does okay....). It is quite hard for me to imagine that such casual students would do better with more moving parts, more planes of motion, less structure to their stroke (such unorthodoxies require MORE practice to master, and these are the students that don't spend the time)...but everyone can have their own opinion.

One great thing about Mark's book is he attempts to clearly point out which aspects of grip, bridge, setup/stance, and stroke are subject to individual preference; and which are better the orthodox way (and WHY)...should definitely be a great help for serious students. You may be surprised at the latitude "allowed."

P.S. - as I re-read your post, I think you and Mark are not far apart at all - he just wants them to find their own fine adjustments within certain parameters...you guys may just be expressing the same thing in slightly different ways. If so, please disregard my rambling.

P.P.S. - the "cookie-cutter" stance, setup, and stroke are only the basic start of the method. It is the fine adjustments and refinements (that I'm thinking you are referring to) that take the student from there forward - a very long journey that few will stick to.

 

[JoeyA]

If you know people with straight strokes that can't pocket balls then they have an alignment problem...


Most people do not how to properly align themselves with the shot...they just bend over and shoot...and yes...many of them have nice, smooth, and flashy strokes...but can't run out..

I'm interested in knowing how you align yourself with the shot. If it is not too much trouble I would be very interested in knowing the minute details of that.

Thanks,

 

[lfigueroa]

LF,
Cool, thanks for responding so soon so I could read it.

I think that no one should be considered an official "student" of an instructor without 8 to 10 lessons over at least a 2 year period (with appropriate regular and focused practice in between lessons). The power of the method is only obtained with such dedication.

With only a lesson or two and irregular practice; there is no stroke tip, no grip, no stance, no setup that will provide the "casual" student with anything other than modest improvement (which of course he may be happy with).

Unfortunately the majority of students probably fall into the "casual" designation; it is a tough row to hoe.

As I've said, what you perceive as "cookie cutter" set-ups may actually contain quite a bit of individual variation - the details and differences are quite fine (though I'm quite doubtful there are any top instructors who encourage a Keith McCready inside elbow - but Keith does okay....). It is quite hard for me to imagine that such casual students would do better with more moving parts, more planes of motion, less structure to their stroke (such unorthodoxies require MORE practice to master, and these are the students that don't spend the time)...but everyone can have their own opinion.

One great thing about Mark's book is he attempts to clearly point out which aspects of grip, bridge, setup/stance, and stroke are subject to individual preference; and which are better the orthodox way (and WHY)...should definitely be a great help for serious students. You may be surprised at the latitude "allowed."

P.S. - as I re-read your post, I think you and Mark are not far apart at all - he just wants them to find their own fine adjustments within certain parameters...you guys may just be expressing the same thing in slightly different ways. If so, please disregard my rambling.

P.P.S. - the "cookie-cutter" stance, setup, and stroke are only the basic start of the method. It is the fine adjustments and refinements (that I'm thinking you are referring to) that take the student from there forward - a very long journey that few will stick to.

Alright, so maybe someone pays, say $300, for a couple lessons, and they're not a "student" of whichever instructor. I guess you're saying they need to go back, over time, to be branded. Fair enough.

But I still stand by my comment about the cookie-cutter look of many folks coming out of the $300 lessons. There is no variation -- they look exactly like Mark at the table. Which, as good as he plays, is probably not such a bad thing for some guys. But if, say Jim Rempe, gives lessons and his guys all come out setting up and looking exactly like Jim Rempe at the table, does that automatically make that set up right for all those players?

Overall, I think you're right -- we're all probably in the same boat on this and though many may take lessons, few will accomplish the practice and experimentation to fruitfully implement what they've been taught.

Lou Figueroa