Accuracy in power stroked cut shots: discovering individual constants for any required aiming adjustments
ernie
useful task of discovering, over week-long trials, how much
compensation (if any) they had to make when shooting cut shots
involving power follow strokes as well as power draw shots on cuts (to
snap the cue ball to a rail and out again with low-right or low-left
for position.
I had noted over the years that any slight hitch or aberration-from-
true in any player’s stroke during normal shots may be easily
unconsciously compensated for, and usually is, even amongst top
professionals. But this same minor hitch is greatly magnified away
from a truly straight delivery under power stroking conditions.
Again, I’ve found it pays to discover any constant value of aiming
compensation (if any) the player needs to apply when stroking cut
shots forcefully. This of course presumes the player has smoothed out
his/her delivery to the fullest extent possible given their individual
body mechanics.
The make-percentage on these power shots rose dramatically when each
student discovered and applied the small to medium necessary
adjustments to their normal aiming point. (We are discussing shots
with more than about a three-foot separation between CB and OB and at
least a foot from the pocket, and adjusting not simply for deflection,
but specifically the less-often discussed deviation effect from a
slight stroke aberration that may announce itself when a player power
strokes.)
In effect, the student knowing via extensive trials that *under power
conditions,* due to a several-millimeter delivery aberration his/her
cue ball may regularly arrive slightly over from the normally aimed-
for OB contact point, then incorporating his/her individual
compensating adjustment -- exactly as many pros have learned they must
do.
The ideal of course, would be to bio-condition the delivery to a
mechanically true line under all amounts of force, but this quite
often is not a real-world possibility for many players -- thus in my
experience, the need to discover aiming adjustments to be applied
where necessary when dealing with power.
Ernie
John Black
80d5fb...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, ernesto-s...@usa.net
says...
> In effect, the student knowing via extensive trials that *under power
> conditions,* due to a several-millimeter delivery aberration his/her
> cue ball may regularly arrive slightly over from the normally aimed-
> for OB contact point, then incorporating his/her individual
> compensating adjustment -- exactly as many pros have learned they must
> do.
>
> The ideal of course, would be to bio-condition the delivery to a
> mechanically true line under all amounts of force, but this quite
> often is not a real-world possibility for many players -- thus in my
> experience, the need to discover aiming adjustments to be applied
> where necessary when dealing with power.
Interesting. This is the first time I've heard someone say embrace the
flaws in your stroke and learn to compensate for them verses working on
indentifying and fixing the flaws. I'm sure this way works too but will
probably limit progress eventually.
John Black
ernie
> Interesting. This is the first time I've heard someone say embrace the
> flaws in your stroke and learn to compensate for them verses working on
> indentifying and fixing the flaws. I'm sure this way works too but will
> probably limit progress eventually.
>
> John Black
John,
Certainly we obviously and ideally perfect our delivery stroke to a
point that it's as flawless as humanely possible. Beyond that
systematic and generally years-long effort, there are clearly many
individuals, I might even say most individuals in quite a few sports
-- champions among the the participants in these sports, with a
remaining very minor bio-mechanical flaw that simply won't go away and
actually doesn't necessarily have to, even when power magnifies the
effect of its presence.
In our sport, which ranks among the most precise imaginable, these
minor flaws (often only one imperfection) are not infrequently
unamenable to "fixing" and don't actually rise to the level of having
to be ironed out for 95% of a rapidly progressing individual's normal
play.
My central point is that there's a methodical way to observe,
calculate, and readily compensate for the flaw made evident only *when
power stroking* and whose remedy, a fix so to speak, cannot be
reliably and consistently ingrained into the muscle memory.
Progress with a given stroke is assured when the individual realizes
via power stroking trials that minor flaw compensation is as readily
applied as the compensations for throw effects of english and/or
english-induced deflection with a given cue stick.
Here we're not discussing or embracing radically imperfect delivery
technique, but rather the minor idiosyncratic feature(s) of our
individual human bio-mechanics that distinguish our highly successful,
matured performance from that of a purpose-built stroking *machine."
But nevertheless a stroke feature that must, and can be, dealt with
via a small predictable compensation when the flaw's correction is
deemed to be ultimately not likely, so that confident and reliable
shot making occurs when power strokes are required.
Ernie
Ron Shepard
John Black <jbl...@texas.net> wrote:
I have mixed feelings about this. For some shots, I do think it is best
(in a practical sense) to compensate for whatever flaws one might have.
In my case, an example of this is a power break shot (9-ball, 8-ball,
etc.). In order for me to hit the cue ball the way I want (just a touch
of topspin, no sidespin) I have to line up with the tip just a little to
the left of center and well below center. Then as I stroke, my elbow
drops and my stroke swoops and I end up hitting the ball in the right
spot.
But for other shots, I don't think this is the right approach. In other
cases, I think it is best to just learn how to stroke the right way.
Progressive drills help with this. For example, suppose you are working
on power draw shots, and you have a tendency to drop your elbow. If you
set up a progressive drill, then you can work right up to the point
where you are successful using correct technique and concentrate your
efforts right at that shot speed. With practice and repetition, you can
extend the correct technique to faster shot speeds. The progressive
drill approach results in you spending most of you practice time right
at your (current) limit, and it gives you the best bang for your
practice time.
The shot you are talking about, a power cut shot with a combination of
draw and sidespin, seems like it would work well with a progressive
drill. There are two distances and one angle that can be varied, along
with the shot speed. Depending on what you might be having problems
with, you might want to concentrate on a single factor at a time, or on
a specific combination of all the factors.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
lfigueroa
approach, given the limited time and effort the vast majority of players
can and/or are willing to give the game. Certainly, no one can deny
that making more balls brings more satisfaction. And, perhaps, for
many, this is the way to go.
But my personal observations have been that, unless you're talking about
players who are pretty good to begin with, your basic issue amateur
player usually has some pretty serious mechanical flaws. I'm not sure
how you get the rec room player down to small/medium adjustments that
are reliable. And, there is the fact that besides general and abundant
mechanical flaws, there almost always is the issue of an inconsistent
approach to the table. IOW, an inconsistent PSR.
I guess what I'm saying is, though this isn't such a a bad idea (and
admit it, we all have done it) I think players should fore go the
immediate and undeniable gratification of the pocketed ball and seek the
more elusive and sublime pleasure a perfectly executed stroke brings.
Lou Figueroa
ernie wrote:
> Recently I assigned a dozen of my rec center pool students the highly
> useful task of discovering, over week-long trials, how much
> compensation (if any) they had to make when shooting cut shots
> involving power follow strokes as well as power draw shots on cuts (to
> snap the cue ball to a rail and out again with low-right or low-left
> for position.
>
> I had noted over the years that any slight hitch or aberration-from-
> true in any player�s stroke during normal shots may be easily
> unconsciously compensated for, and usually is, even amongst top
> professionals. But this same minor hitch is greatly magnified away
> from a truly straight delivery under power stroking conditions.
>
> Again, I�ve found it pays to discover any constant value of aiming
ernie
understandably easy to miss this paragraph of the original post
(quoting myself here):
---------------------------------------------------------
"Again, I’ve found it pays to discover any constant value of aiming
compensation (if any) the player needs to apply when stroking cut
shots forcefully. This of course presumes the player has smoothed
out
his/her delivery to the fullest extent possible given their
individual
body mechanics."
Note the second sentence in that paragraph.
Also the "students" I deal with are rarely all beginners, but commonly
are players who have worked on their games on and off for years and
are hoping to learn how to miss less often, as I'm sure is the case
with vitually all RSB contributors and "lurkers" (an awful-sounding
locution for timid non-contributors).
I would add that rather than the natural reflexive "this approach is
wrong" reaction, give this observation/compensation technique a trial
and see how it increases your reliable make-percentage on the
specifically referenced power shots.
Keep in mind, that *many successful pros* have to routinely make the
aiming compensations for power stroking that I've mentioned, along
with instinctively making their throw and deflection compensations.
The specific reason is exemplified and clarified in a statement once
made by Hal Mix, the very well recognized pool coach (Varner and
Davenport and numerous others were regulars for his services): "I've
only ever seen three players with perfectly sound and true strokes."
He cited Steve Mizerak's stroke and two others he had studied in
detail.
Ernie
John Black
c13a65...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, ernesto-s...@usa.net
says...
> My central point is that there's a methodical way to observe,
> calculate, and readily compensate for the flaw made evident only *when
> power stroking* and whose remedy, a fix so to speak, cannot be
> reliably and consistently ingrained into the muscle memory.
>
> Progress with a given stroke is assured when the individual realizes
> via power stroking trials that minor flaw compensation is as readily
> applied as the compensations for throw effects of english and/or
> english-induced deflection with a given cue stick.
Ok, I see your "powerful" point now. The power stroke is not only a good
way to discover your flaws but also to learn how to compensate for them.
Makes sense, thanks.
John Black
lfigueroa
no ax to grind, but I still find your basic premise a "little off" :-)
I saw and read and comprehended your second sentence in that paragraph.
My first question to you would be: where do you play? IME, I have
never come across rec room players that could play a damn. Where are
you (geographically speaking)that this is not true?
Not speaking for anyone else here, but in my case, there was nothing
"reflexive" about my response. As I was sipping my morning cappuccino,
I gave your approach due thought and consideration before responding.
Sooooo, who are these "many successful pros" you speak of and how is it
that you know that they are all compensating, as you describe? I'm not
saying it is not so, but I would like to know who they are and how it is
that you know this claim to be true among so "many" pros.
And yes, Hal was a fine instructor. But nowadays the level of play has
vastly improved from his era.
Lou Figueroa
ernie wrote:
> I guess for the several contributors to the discussion so far, it was
> understandably easy to miss this paragraph of the original post
> (quoting myself here):
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> "Again, I�ve found it pays to discover any constant value of aiming
Ron Shepard
lfigueroa <lfig...@att.net> wrote:
> Sooooo, who are these "many successful pros" you speak of and how is it
> that you know that they are all compensating, as you describe?
This reminds me of something else I wanted to add about compensation.
There are (more or less) two types of compensation that pool players
(all of us) do, the subconscious kind and the conscious kind. We have
some control over the conscious kind, but we have little or no control
over the subconscious kind (the autopilot stuff). Our brains work below
the conscious level in all sorts of ways to try to achieve goals. In
the context of pool, this means getting the balls in the pockets and
getting the cue ball to some point for position. The problems come with
mixing these two kinds of compensation, and then trying to second guess
yourself about how much is supposed to be conscious and how much is left
to the autopilot.
When you practice a technique, you achieve two different kinds of goals.
Your technique gets better, and your autopilot learns how to compensate
at ever finer levels. So there are two moving targets. When you throw
the idea of conscious compensation into the mix, that is like aiming for
yet another moving target that is sitting on top of these other moving
targets.
As I said before, I think this might be a good idea on some particular
shots (like the break shot for me). But I don't think it is a good
approach for the vast majority of shots and techniques. You are to some
extend pitting your conscious mind against your subconscious mind, and
that's not the right kind of goal. You are supposed to be getting
everything to work together, not for them to fight between each other.
Well, that's the way I feel about it.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
ernie
> OK. Since you want to talk about this more in depth :-) (And, I have
> no ax to grind, but I still find your basic premise a "little off" :-)
>
after each opening sentence. They seem to only convey a puzzling
superciliousness. Or maybe merely a silly inside joke from Lou
himself to Lou himself, the mysterious, secretly entertaining "dan't"
for "don't" etc.
> I saw and read and comprehended your second sentence in that paragraph.
>
> IME, I have never come across rec room players that could play a damn.
That kind of elitist generalization can't be taken seriously. While
I'm sure it accurately represents your perception and experience, it's
essentially completely without wider significance or relevance.
>
> Not speaking for anyone else here, but in my case, there was nothing
> "reflexive" about my response. As I was sipping my morning cappuccino,
> I gave your approach due thought and consideration before responding.
>
> Sooooo, who are these "many successful pros" you speak of and how is it
> that you know that they are all compensating, as you describe? I'm not
> saying it is not so, but I would like to know who they are and how it is
> that you know this claim to be true among so "many" pros.
Of course you're not saying it is not so, since you'd have no basis
for doing that, and that is as it should be.
At a pro 9-ball tournament Nick Varner (who is one of our sport's true
gentlemen) and I, had a long discussion about the kind of
compensations that various pros use. He later introduced me to Hal
Mix and we sat with him in the hotel's coffee shop. Hal had a great
deal to say about various pros' stroking idiosyncracies and the minute
compensations these stroke anomalies necessitated for them. His item-
by-item stroke dissections were fascinatingly detailed and
methodical. Kim Davenport came by and joined us, adding a few
comments of his own about what we were discussing plus the usual win-
some/lose-some comments about how the tournament was progressing. I
considered their cumulative input reliable, enlightening, and very
valuable.
>
> And yes, Hal was a fine instructor. But nowadays the level of play has
> vastly improved from his era.
I think the level of excellent play isn't demonstrably higher, but
more ubiquitous, due to the wide availability domestically and
internationally of well researched and well presented instructional
and tournament videos, DVDs, books, free online tournament video clips
and instructionals -- and not least, the tsunamic competitive
challenge and urgency of exponentially increased great international
players matching up for gambling and tournaments.
125 or 150 and out in Straight Pool, or say a six- or 8-pack of 9-ball
racks, was an excellent and not infrequent level of play 50 years ago,
just as it would be quite excellent today.
Ernie
lfigueroa
In 40 years of playing pool all over the country, I've never seen rec
room players that can play a damn. That's not elitist, it is a fact. I
ask again: where are you geographically, where this goes against the norm?
And, I ask again how *you* know all these "many pros" are doing what you
claim? You cite Hal Mix, who was a very nice gentleman and gave me (as
I suspect he did everyone who bought one), a carefully hand-annotated
copy of his instruction book. (I also had a very nice extended
conversation with him.)
But instructors are a funny lot and often times they make all kinds of
claims to support their pet theories. There are guys around -- that
some give great respect to -- that will claim Bustamonte is using his
aiming system, or Efren is using his system for BHE, or something else.
But when you press and ask them how they know this to be so, all they
can offer is their opinion or guess. But that does not stop them from
making the claims.
Soooo, it appears all you have is a coffee house conversation to go on,
and, unless I missed it, still no names of these "many pros" and the
adjustments they make. You would appear to be taking what Hal told you
on faith and do not have first hand knowledge to back up what you claim...
No biggie.
Lou Figueroa
ernie
> claims to support their pet theories.
> can offer is their opinion or guess. But that does not stop them from
> making the claims.
>
> Soooo, it appears all you have is a coffee house conversation to go on,
> first hand knowledge to back up what you claim...
I indeed totally accepted as the complete factual truth that many pros
make aiming compensations that experience has told them they need on
power follow and/or power draw shots (beyond english and throw
compensations and related to idiosyncratic stroke mechanisms). As I
clearly indicated, prior to being introduced to Hal Mix at the event,
I had a discussion with Nick in which the subject of various
compensations came up, *including the power-related ones* under
present discussion.
As previously mentioned, Hal had a great deal to say about various
pros' stroking idiosyncracies and the minute compensations these
stroke anomalies necessitated for them including -- for them -- power-
related ones.
Sooooo, (is that the right amount of “o”s when you’re toying with
someone, Lou -- I don’t know your protocol, you seem to generally
vacillate between 4 and 5) I accepted with quite appropriate
situational confidence that Varner and Hal were in agreement and knew
exactly what they were talking about.
I thought that the power/aiming compensations for very mature but
residually aberrational strokes (less than linearly or axially true)
were especially interesting and I’ve found over the years that players
making that kind of compensation on power shots radically increase
their make-percentage even if their mechanics are only minutely
aberrational.
I’ve attended dozens of pro tournaments, the one where I spoke to Hal
and Nick included. Can I confidently and precisely see exactly where
any given pro is either aiming, striking, or compensating? Of course
not.
Sooooo, I guess I’m accepting on “faith” or hearsay if you will, what
I learned during the much-appreciated encounters cited above, and not
least what I’ve seen to be a practical, and in many cases necessary
and contributory compensation.
Your mileage may differ, sooooo … “no biggie” in your terms.
Ernie
Matt Sherman, Bondologist - Billiards.About.com
highly
> useful task of discovering, over week-long trials, how much
> compensation (if any) they had to make when shooting cut shots
> involving power follow strokes as well as power draw shots on cuts (to
> snap the cue ball to a rail and out again with low-right or low-left
> for position.>>
> Ernie
There is a difference between saying very few players, even very few
pros, have a perfectly straight stroke, which is true, and saying that
many top players have hitches in their stroking movement, which is
less true.
The elements that make for smooth, non-inhibited strokes help make
power draw and topspin strokes performed without needing to compensate
on cut shots.
The fundamentals of "letting the cue stick come forward smoothly" are
better than compensating for hitches and twitches IMO:
http://billiards.about.com/b/2009/09/01/the-pool-lesson-to-end-all-pool-lessons-really.htm
lfigueroa
Lou Figueroa
still no answer as to where the land of
killer rec room players is located
ernie wrote:
> Sooooo, I guess I�m accepting on �faith� or hearsay if you will, what
> I learned during the much-appreciated encounters cited above...
lfigueroa
Lou Figueroa
M@man
WOW lots of insight about Hal Mix in here is interesting. Seeing how
he was from Salem, OR where i have lived all my life. i knew he was a
noteable instructor author and a very generous person. i just thought
it was interesting that you all know him.
i don't know much on the topis @ hand except that Reyes and Bustemante
are masters of the cross stoke and use it perfectly and effortlessly.
i use it on extreme cut shots where the distance between CB and OB is
minimal but leave requires travel of the CB. E.G. spin equals
distance---Hal taught me that in one of my two lessons b4 he passed.--
Have a good weekend people...dead stroke
John Black
@u36g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, barbo...@gmail.com says...
> i don't know much on the topis @ hand except that Reyes and Bustemante
> are masters of the cross stoke and use it perfectly and effortlessly.
The "cross stroke"?
John Black
John Black
@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, ma...@omnibilia.com says...
Hey Matt, I started going through your articles on billiards.about.com. Is
there some kind of ordered list of the lessons or articles that I can try to
follow? The problem I'm having is that the articles refer to one another so
as I am part way down into one, I branch off to a link to another article to
see what you are talking about. Before I know it, I'm 2 or 3 articles away
from the one I was in the middle of. I've read partway through several but
don't know which I've finished or which I'm missing, etc. Is there a table
of contents or just a list of all of them?
Anyway I'm finding some good stuff there, thanks. I see you really
emphasize a very light grip. There is a statement in
http://billiards.about.com/b/2009/09/01/the-pool-lesson-to-end-all-pool-
lessons-really.htm
that I think has a typo. Since that statement seems to be the key to the
idea, I thought I'd bring it to your attention:
"I get very impressive results on my draw, follow, english, break, etc.
strokes with a clasp on the cue I would rate between 1 and 1/5 on a scale of
1 to 10."
I think you meant 1.5 rather than 1/5 (which is 0.2) Still, it seems a
little questionable to me that the entire working range is really between 1
and 1.5 out of ten where 1.5 would be about as tight as you want to grip.
That range seems too small and too hard to distinguish say a 1.2 from a 1.3
for example. I'm pretty sure I'm not misunderstanding because here is
another statement from the article:
"Likewise, the hard stroke mostly involves a tightening on the cue stick and
not a mad rush to pace a speedy stroke. This is a slight tightening action.
Think "1.35" instead of "1" on a scale of 1 to 10 in total gripping force."
That being said, I want to report GREAT results with using a light grip on
the break which you recommend as well. I've never been super happy with my
break. I play mostly 8-ball. I sometimes make a ball on the break but not
the majority of the time. For as many years as I can remember, I have taken
it as dogma that you should have a *tighter* than normal grip on the break
because you are hitting so hard. Last night I went to a VERY light grip on
the break as counter-intuitive as it sounded. All of a sudden, I started
smashing open the racks only coming up dry only a couple of times during the
night. And many times making multiple balls which I rarely do. Direct
quote from the guy I was playing last night: "damnit that is the 3rd break
in a row where you've made at least 2 balls on the break!" and on one of
those I made 4 balls. I can't remember the last time I did that if I ever
did. It makes no sense to use a light grip on the break, let alone a very
light grip but it works! Thanks again.
John Black
ernie
light grip but it works!
John Black"
--------------------------------------------------------------------
It actually makes a great deal of sense, John. I discovered that
light grip on the 8- and 9-ball smash breaks for myself years ago.
It induces a secondary acceleration pivot point-- the hand/wrist joint
(the elbow being the primary pivot). It's virtually impossible to
fully bring that wrist snap into play with a very tight grip. That
light grip is also highly contributory to exceptional pack-breaking
action in 14.1.
Mizerak's grip was always so light that, similar to Mosconi (Mizerak's
first informal instructor), it inevitably led to their beautiful slip
stroke action. You can develop the maximally performing light grip by
thinking of it as a kind of controlled "throwing the cue stick"
through the cue ball. Highly vernacular, but an effective image
motivation to condition the arm's muscle memory.
Ernie
John Black
@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, ernesto-s...@usa.net says...
> "It makes no sense to use a light grip on the break, let alone a very
> light grip but it works!
>
> John Black"
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> It actually makes a great deal of sense, John. I discovered that
> light grip on the 8- and 9-ball smash breaks for myself years ago.
Well why didn't you tell us?!? :-) This is huge info... The surprising
thing is that I am now *breaking* with a grip lighter than the lightest grip
I ever shot a normal shot with before. I've really lightened my grip on
normal shots as well.
> It induces a secondary acceleration pivot point-- the hand/wrist joint
> (the elbow being the primary pivot). It's virtually impossible to
> fully bring that wrist snap into play with a very tight grip. That
> light grip is also highly contributory to exceptional pack-breaking
> action in 14.1.
>
> Mizerak's grip was always so light that, similar to Mosconi (Mizerak's
> first informal instructor), it inevitably led to their beautiful slip
> stroke action. You can develop the maximally performing light grip by
> thinking of it as a kind of controlled "throwing the cue stick"
> through the cue ball. Highly vernacular, but an effective image
> motivation to condition the arm's muscle memory.
Thanks Ernie. Matt also speaks of thinking about throwing the cue stick and
the slip stroke. I wish I had Mosconi for an instructor (I wish I had any
instructor actually).
I'm all of a sudden getting really excited about pool again. I was going
through a period in the last 6 months where I just didn't have time to play
much so my game has been going downhill gradually which is frustrating.
Then last night I played great including a break and run (which was probably
the game I made 4 balls on the break, ha ha).
John Black
Ron Shepard
John Black <jbl...@texas.net> wrote:
> [...] It makes no sense to use a light grip on the break, let alone a very
> light grip but it works!
The "trick" is that your arm moves faster with the light grip than a
tight death grip. The same holds on the break shot as on a normal shot.
You can see this very well if you do the progressive topspin drill that
I posted before. When you get to your current "limit" on that shot,
experiment with both tight and loose grips, and I predict that you will
see a measurable difference, one that you won't have to shoot 100 shots
to see, one that you will see after just two or three shots each way.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
ernie
> > light grip but it works!
>
> > John Black"
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > It actually makes a great deal of sense, John. I discovered that
> > light grip on the 8- and 9-ball smash breaks for myself years ago.
>
Well why didn't you tell us?!? :-) This is huge info
To be candid John, (and I do know your question is amicably
rhetorical) during the “years ago” that I spoke of, I was indeed
becoming quite proficient at our sport via methodical trial and
observation, yet was functionally computer non-literate, and I hadn’t
of course yet heard of RSB, but more relevant -- I was only barely
capable of expressing myself without embarrassment in the language of
my new country.
I could only verbalize many of my thoughts in a bumbling pidgin-
English way, like far too many of my less fortunate compadres. I’ve
finally reached a state of total fluency (IMHO) which I define as
being able to say anything you wish to say, *in exactly the words you
wish to use.*
Btw, I love this sport so much that few things in life (birth of
children excepted) thrill me more
than hearing someone say, as you did, "I'm getting really excited
about pool again."
Ernie
John Black
@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, ernesto-s...@usa.net says...
> > > "It makes no sense to use a light grip on the break, let alone a very
> > > light grip but it works!
> >
> > > John Black"
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > It actually makes a great deal of sense, John. I discovered that
> > > light grip on the 8- and 9-ball smash breaks for myself years ago.
> >
> Well why didn't you tell us?!? :-) This is huge info
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To be candid John, (and I do know your question is amicably
> becoming quite proficient at our sport via methodical trial and
> of course yet heard of RSB, but more relevant -- I was only barely
> capable of expressing myself without embarrassment in the language of
> my new country.
>
> I could only verbalize many of my thoughts in a bumbling pidgin-
> finally reached a state of total fluency (IMHO) which I define as
> being able to say anything you wish to say, *in exactly the words you
> wish to use.*
Well if English is not your first language you certainly have attained
fluency. I knew something was up because you have been using a lot of big
words in your posts. Now I understand that you are trying to utilize your
new language to its fullest. Lots of words are too neglected by natives.
> Btw, I love this sport so much that few things in life (birth of
> children excepted) thrill me more
> than hearing someone say, as you did, "I'm getting really excited
> about pool again."
Keep all of your good info coming.
John Black
JakartaDean
> Recently I assigned a dozen of my rec center pool students the highly
> useful task of discovering, over week-long trials, how much
> compensation (if any) they had to make when shooting cut shots
> involving power follow strokes as well as power draw shots on cuts (to
> snap the cue ball to a rail and out again with low-right or low-left
> for position.
>
I realize I'm replying to a month-old thread, but bear with me please --
I don't live anywhere near a pool table at the moment, but I've been
lucky enough to spend a few days at an old hangout and play a bit...
How often do you guys need to hit a shot like this -- long shot with
side English? I personally avoid this situation like the plague, as I
know I'm no better than 50% with a half-table-length shot with English.
I can try to adjust for deflection, swerve, etc. but I'd just rather
not have all those variables in there. In fact, I'd probably rather
kick or bank, if I'm sure of good cue ball position (i.e. two way or
win-win shot).
Ernie, I'm not discrediting discovering new things about my stroke or
adding to my arsenal, but personally I try never to need this particular
shot. Any other views?
Dean