Lou wrote...
> And the tables I played on did bank extremely short. Of the banks matches I
> watched, the vast majority of shots were missed short.

I just wanted to say that I have a Diamond table at home, and the tournament tables didn't bank any shorter than my home table, or the Diamonds at The Bank Shot. They do, however, bank a lot shorter than the Gold Crowns and Gandys that I've played on.

My only slight peeve with the way the tournament tables played (other than the rolls I've heard about - and I generally shoot too hard to worry about those) was that whatever frictionless substance they polished the balls with made any transfer of spin nearly impossible for the first several days of play. I clean and polish my balls fairly religiously and these were the slickest I've ever seen.

Other than that...

I fully support the DCC and feel very fortunate to be living close enough to attend it each year. What Greg's put together hasn't been done in my lifetime and I applaud him for having the audacity to even try.

They could hold the thing on the tarmac at Standiford Field and I'd still be there, but again I have the luxury of not having to travel, make hotel arrangements, etc.

I've talked to Greg a couple of times about the venue, and I'm sure he's heard this from many others - especially after this year, but I really think the DCC has outgrown the Executive West. Most of the problems with scheduling could be alleviated with more tables, but at this point the only way to add any more tables would be to eliminate some seating. We already lost a good chunk of seating this year when those additional rows were added to the right side.

Greg has said that it's the spectators that pay his operational costs, but I'm afraid that the spectators are getting turned off by the crowded standing-room-only conditions even more than some players are getting turned off by the scheduling confusion.

Example: Truman Hogue, a fan favorite, played his first match of the tournament directly in front of the scorer's table. Directly across the aisle, at the same time, Jeanette Lee played her first match ever in the DCC. The packed throng in that area of the room was, in a word, ridiculous.

Several other times during the events the marquee players would be assigned to play either in front of the scorer's table or at the entrance to the room. These areas invariably became clogged with spectators while lesser-known players battled in relative tranquility off on the right side or in the chapel area.

I think a little common sense in table assignments would go a long way to easing the crowds, but if the crowd is going to keep growing like it has up to this point, something is going to have to change. I think that something just may be the venue. I also think that the time to make that change is BEFORE even more players and spectators are lost.

I've got all of my old RSB posts (the ones I had saved anyway) posted into the pool 'blog. That means that the actual Pool Ramblings page will be going away soon.

I would also like to hit Google and find any of my posts that I missed and get them into the 'blog.

I've decided, since I've got this spiffy new 'blog system in place, that I'll migrate all of the old pool ramblings from their old (very long!) page to the 'blog.

This may take a while, but I've put a couple of old messages in to make sure it will work and that the back-dating doesn't break anything.

Straight-In Lou wrote...
> My. First Smorg reappears, then Ghosst, Blackjack, and now Paul. Who've I
> missed? They're coming out of the woodwork, I tell ya.

Poking my head out of the woodwork long enough to contribute to this topic.
Below is from a conversation I had with Fred back in March. The important
part is the last paragraph. My game still hasn't recovered, but the memory
of those two days in February keeps me trying.

Forgive my whining:

Meanwhile, I suck. In the middle of February I lost my job and the next day
my sister found a lump in her breast. To keep my mind off these issues I
played pool. Some combination of my mood, lack of sleep, sore arm, etc.
combined to drop me into flat out no exaggeration top level pro mode. I had
made a slight, simple adjustment to my stance, one that I didn't pay much
attention to, that threw me into alignment like never before.

I was playing the ghost, getting ball in hand after the break, and stringing
5-packs together like it was nothing. Pool was fun fun FUN again. The next
day I went to The Bank Shot and was STILL playing like a pro. I was even
able to make what I call "one-pocket cuts" (thin long cuts while controlling
the cueball with speed and spin) with no effort, and beat a top local player
in one-pocket all day long, mostly by running out at every opportunity. The
guy wanted to take me to Oliver's (another pool room) and back me against
anyone there.

Then Truman Hogue came in and started practicing banks on another table.
Inspired, I started practicing my own banks and found that this new style of
mine wasn't suited to bank shots. I reverted back to the banks stroke I've
been developing for the past few months, thinking that the slight adjustment
I'd made to my regular stroke earlier would be easy to recall since I'd used
it for the past two days.

I was wrong. Way wrong. Whatever it was I'd done apparently wasn't as
simple as I'd thought, since I've spent the past month struggling (I mean
REALLY struggling) to run even one rack of nine ball. My magical alignment
is gone, and any attempt to manually align myself destroys my speed control.
I'm missing so many long straight in shots you'd never know I've been
shooting dozens of them as practice nearly every day for 15 years.

What I'd noticed about my magic stance was a slight opening of my right arm,
around the armpit. What I unfortunately failed to notice was things like
head position, bridge length, right shoulder tension, left arm position,
blah blah blah.

So I went from being one of the best players I've ever seen to a pretty
lousy banger overnight, just because I failed to properly take notice of
something really special that had happened with my game. You can bet that
if I ever get it back I'll damn sure pay attention then. I just hope it
doesn't take another 17 years.

My sister's lump turned out to be nothing

Tony Mathews wrote...
> This question was asked by a few posters in the past. I once heard a
> generality uttered that shafts with high squirt draw the ball better than
> shafts with low squirt. I don't think that this is true.

Interesting. I have a practice shot that uses maximum straight draw, and I've found it to be easier with my original Schon shaft that with my 314 shaft. I've been assuming that the difference was due to the Schon shaft being stiffer, or that the tip on the Schon shaft is a little softer. Perhaps the squirt thing has something to do with it. Or I could just be a crackpot.

frank howe wondered...
> What are the advantages for the lefties? The statement got me thinking
> and I couldn't think of any.

I really doubt that this is what Ron meant, but lefties are generally right brain dominant, which for a pool player would seem to make lefties more likely to be FPs. And of course everyone knows that FPs always have the advantage. :-)

Bob Johnson wrote:
(Blah)
> Has anyone else noticed this, or tried it?
> Do you know anyone who simply lines up, takes aim,
> adjusts, and fires with no practice strokes at all?

I was taught that practice strokes are evil. You're supposed to be
aligned correctly when you first bend over the shot. Practice strokes
can often convince you that you're lined up correctly when you're not.
Another bad thing about them is that if your practice strokes reveal
some flaw in your alignment most people are likely to simply adjust
their grip, arm angle, etc. when what they should be doing is standing
up, stepping completely out of the shot, and starting over.

My position has softened over the years, however, as I now feel that
practice strokes are helpful in getting a proper feel for the speed of
the shot-to-be. I usually take one practice stroke without even
looking at my stick then fire away, trusting that my alignment is good.

I think all that applause has really got to grate on the ladies. I mean,. at some point you have to start expecting them to make certain shots, and applauding after all those ducks takes all meaning from the applause.

Allison shoots a jump-three rail kick shot. The crowd goes wild. Allison shoots a stop-shot hanger from 1 foot away. The crowd goes wild. Allison dogs an easy shot. About half the crowd goes wild anyway, since they weren't really paying attention to the shot but they're completely conditioned to applaud at least once every 30 seconds.

These are professional pool players, not Special Olympians. I think we should give them some quiet in which to work, and save the applause for when it means something.

tom simpson wondered...
> On the other hand, if I replace the pro [on ESPN broadcasts],
> how could I avoid smacking Mitch?

Just begin every sentence with "That's pretty stupid, Mitch. Folks, what Mitch meant to say was..."

Or take all his catchphrases (All-important lag for the break, Beautiful Brunswick Gold Crown Four table, is really making a statement, etc.) and repeat them so often they lose all meaning. Oh wait, he already does that himself.

What I'd really like to see is, right after Mitch does his play-by-play of the guy racking the balls with the Sardo, when he says "...and there you are. A perfect rack of nine balls," I'd like to see the pro say "That's pretty stupid, Mitch. Folks, what Mitch meant to say is that while the Sardo rack certainly racks the balls well, it's killing the game of 9-ball. Notice how they've had to start racking with the nine on the spot to keep the corner balls from going in all the time. What Mitch also meant to say is that if ESPN had any balls whatsoever they'd at least acknowledge that they've done this instead of just pretending nobody will notice."

Patrick Johnson wrote...
> Imagine the table surface is vertical and you're trying to balance the
> object ball on the cue ball, which is stuck to the end of your stick.

Just be careful not to imagine the table tipping over and crushing you.

Since we've all had so much fun debating Jason's theories about spin transfer and tip/ball contact time, I thought I'd propose some more nonsense (IMO) for discussion.

THE DRAW SHOT MYTH DEBUNKED
Most people cannot draw the ball, therefore it must not be possible. What is commonly referred to as "draw" is actually an optical illusion caused by our expectations that a moving cueball will keep moving in the same direction.

ALL BALLS ARE GRAY
I know a player that is color-blind. He is a good player, and since he says that all of the balls are gray, it must be true.

THE 100 MPH BREAK SHOT
All this talk we've been hearing about 25-30 mph being the maximum break shot speed must be wrong. It sure seems faster to me, so it must indeed be faster.

THE HALF-BALL HIT SIDE POCKET SHOT
I don't really think we've completely covered this issue.

THE NINE BALL ON THE BREAK
The odds against this are astronomical! All those balls banging into each other in just the right way to drive the nine, from the CENTER of the rack, into a 4.5" pocket? Preposterous. I don't think we'll ever see it in our lifetimes.

SLATE
If you think about it, having a material that magically "just happens" to be exactly what we need to make our table beds out of seems pretty "lucky" doesn't it? That's what they want us to think.

Deno J. Andrews wrote...
> He [Gore] is picking the counties, and that is crazy because ALL
> counties have some problems.

How would you, and others like you, feel about ALL counties with less than say a 2% margin, in all states with less than say a 2% margin, being scrutinized very carefully before an official winner is declared? If I thought this could be done quickly enough I'd be all for it.

> So yes, by not accepting the votes as they are, and seeking to have
> votes changed (like the Buchanan votes that are "supposed" to be
> Gore votes) is a basic hurt to democracy, no matter how
> you look at it.

"Seeking to have votes changed" is wording I would disagree with. In exchange I would submit "seeking to determine the voter's actual intent" with the provision that it should be the voters themselves that declare that intent. A manual recount may allow that determination if it's done fairly and openly.

> On another note, what if 2000 or so people were to come forward in Palm
> County and say they voted for Buchanan? Would you think they were lying,
> or would you say, wow...I guess people did vote for Buchanan down there?
> Would that solve the debate?

I don't think it would solve anything. Republicans would probably think the issue was settled, but Democrats would probably assume that it was really 2000 Bush supporters. Since there would be no way to tell for sure, short of an official re-vote, nothing would change except there would be more opportunity for finger pointing.

> I don't mind a delayed vote at all. In fact, I like the hand-count idea.
> There are reps from both parties involved and I believe it will be a fair
> process.

I hope so, although it seems that it may not happen if they can't get it done by tomorrow afternoon.

> The thing that gets me is that the Libs tend to think that all those
> 19000 votes that were disqualified should somehow go to Gore.

Again, I don't really think this is true. They certainly think many of them were meant to go to Gore, but they're trying to determine this via re-counts. I haven't heard anyone suggest that any of these votes should just be arbitrarily switched to Gore.

> Count the votes and move on.

I also think this is the best solution we currently have, but I will be pissed if some serious changes aren't made to our voting and counting processes because of this fiasco. This country could end up with a President that the people didn't really want, and to me that's discraceful even if the President does a fantastic job. Once this election is over there had better be some steps taken to ensure that something like this never happens again.

> Remember, we also have an Electoral College, many of whom do
> not have to vote for the person their constituents voted for.

I don't think this has been given nearly the attention it deserves. I must admit that I was unaware of the elector's leeway in December until this election. I don't understand the reasoning for giving them this lattitude at all. As close as this election is I think the electors had damn well better vote as their constituents did. To do anything else would be unpardonable IMO.

> What do others think of letting the Electoral College in Florida decide? I
> think it is the best way to do it, since they make the final decision
> anyway.

I don't like it. It nullifies the vote of every single person in the state. Is Florida one of the states where the electors can vote their conscience? If so, you're right. They make the final decision anyway.

Deno J. Andrews wrote...
> If we "fix" their votes, there is no democracy as I have stated,
> because there WAS a vote, and whether or not their vote was
> "wrong," it was a vote nonetheless...and changing that for
> anything hurts democracy.

There's something about this attitude - that it's the vote itself, not the accuracy of the vote that's important - that's been bothering me since last week. To me, the physical act of voting is nothing more than the means by which the voters express their preference. If it fails to provide for an accurate expression, yet is allowed to stand anyway, IMO that is what can hurt Democracy.

> [...]
> Our democracy calls for a vote ON election day. That happened
> and the votes are in. As I stated already, if there were mistakes
> in the vote, too bad. The people had their chance to fix their
> mistakes, and they did not. To vote again goes against us, thus
> killing what we know of our democracy.

The same attitude re-stated, but this time warning of killing Democracy instead of just hurting it. I really fail to see how a wrong, yet timely, vote can be preferred over an accurate, yet delayed one. This attitude is one I'll probably never fully understand.

This election has been a wake-up call for Americans, and I know that we all hope that everyone does indeed wake up. I expect some serious voting reform actions the next few years, but that doesn't really help us right now. I'd like to see a national re-vote, but since I fear that it would be subject to the same sloppiness as this one displayed it would be pointless. My next choice would be complete and accurate re-counts of all close states, but I don't think this can be done without partisan finger pointing from both sides, and this could further divide us.

So what do I think should be done? I don't know, this whole thing is a mess. What I do know however, is that the anti-recount and anti-revote people should adopt different slogans than "if there were mistakes in the vote, too bad" and "whether or not the vote was wrong, it was a vote nonetheless." I don't think this attutide is what the framers of the Constitution had in mind.

bbentley wrote...
> Now..most carpal tunnel is characterized by
> numbness in the finger TIPS, and the pain almost
> always gets worse at night.

A quick test to see if you have CTS:

1. Locate a joint that you suspect may be inflamed. For me it was the base of my thumb.

2. Heat a knitting needle until it glows red.

3. Insert the knitting needle into the suspect joint.

4. If you can feel no difference in the pain, then you have CTS.

Hope this helps.

I recently was accused of making a sexist remark on another thread. I reflexively defended my position in ways that were probably not even necessary, as Ed eventually pointed out.

The problem is with the word "sexist." It ends in "ist." Words with this suffix are almost always associated with bad things, and cause a defensive reaction. Think about it:

Racist
Sexist
Communist
Fascist
Bigamist
Cellist
Lobbyist
Renquist

There's something about each of these words, that were they attributed most people, would cause a defensive reaction right away. All the words have in common is their suffix.

You almost never hear good words with that suffix. There's no "loveist," " fuzzybunnyist," or "peaceist."

How about, in the interest of peace, we all strive to eliminate this suffix from our daily lives. Except, that is, for the physicists, biologists, and novelists among us.

The suffix "ism" should also be banned, for the same reasons.

J Dub wrote..
> Geez, not even a decent flame war. C'mon guys, if you're going to get your
> testosterone boiling, take off the gloves and do it right. Don't expect us
> to vote for the winner.
If you want a flame war you'll have to start one yourself. Some good topics might be "Only chumps play one-pocket," and "Efren sucks because he isn't an American," and "Three-ball, the only true test of pool skill."

Since the recent troll invasion of ASP I've lost all inhibitions about plonking people, so I'd be more likely to just ignore someone than to get into a pissing contest with them. If I can't keep a disagreement up to at least a marginally adult level I just don't feel like wasting my time with it.

Ed Mercier wrote...
> Because we generally do not worry about grown men making other grown men cry under
> nearly any circumstance. So making the statement when referring to Allison is an
> off-hand reference to her sex, and the widely held opinion that women are more
> likely to cry than men are. That makes it sexist.

Okay. I see your point. I feel my fault was not, however in making a sexist remark, but rather in failing to anticipate that others may understandably interpret it as such. I'm not going to let myself become overy concerned about this type of thing or I'd become afraid to post anything besides "shoot, shoot, shoot."

If the match being discussed had indeed been between Earl and Cory Deuel, I might very well have made the same statement. In that context it would certainly have been an off-hand reference to Cory's relative youth, relative inexperience, and relative immaturity. Hmmm, so there would have been some veiled meaning in one case, and no (intended) veiled meaning in the other. Makes me wish I had a therapist to sort this out.

BTW: That last paragraph was in no way intended to defame Cory Deuel. The mentions of relative youth and relative inexperience are, I feel, fairly harmless and obvious, especially when comparing him to Earl Strickland. Immaturity is one of those unfortunate words with several meanings. In this context I was referring to a (possible) immaturity in handling the type of sharking stunts that Earl may pull in a match. The same type of immaturity that makes some young men cry because a drill sargeant yells at them. Another type of immaturity is evidenced by poor-sportsmanship, and in that area I'm pretty sure that Cory is way (better than) Earl. As is a large percentage of the population.

Ed Mercier wrote...
> So you're saying you would be just as likely to make this remark about a male player
> (maybe Buddy Hall?) as a female player (Allison)? If no, it's a sexist remark. If
> yes, you're a dope. Your choice I guess.

The conversation was about Earl vs. Allison. If those two were to match up, which one would be more likely to make an ass of themselves, use sharking tactics, argue calls, etc.?

Now wouldn't that leave the other player in the position of possibly being upset by such antics?

Wouldn't that be a horrible thing for CueTec?

If I'd said Allison might make Earl cry that would make no sense, not because Earl is a man, but because Allison would never behave that badly. Earl does behave that badly, so anyone he plays has to be extra careful to not let him get under their skin.

You can read sexist into my statement if you want, but I think I deserve more consideration than this knee-jerk reaction. It seems to me that your implication that only a "dope" would make this remark about Earl vs. another male player could also be inferred as a sexist stand.

I won't make that inference about you because I've read enough from you to feel that, while you are at times wrong, you at least seem to feel that you have a legitimate reason for your opinions. I doubt you could justify these kinds of sexist feelings to yourself, therefore I doubt that you're a sexist. It would be nice if you could give me the same consideration.

> > >NO......the best match would be Strickland and Fisher!
> >
> > Sponsored by CueTec, of course!

I guess I'm probably in the minority here, but I hate this idea, and I can't imagine why either player would want to do it.

I think it's agreed that Allison would need some type of spot, whether it was a designated breaker or whatever. Any match that included that type of adjustment is, IMO, making a pretty clear statement that Allison can't keep up with Earl playing straight up. For most people this would only be stating the obvious and the match would end up being more of a publicity stunt than an actual match.

But say Allison wins. Nothing would be proved as "everyone" would know that the win wouldn't have been possible without the adjustment. Earl would be taking a very public loss that he didn't deserve, but a very public loss nonetheless. Any comments Earl would inevitably make about losing because of the adjustment would only create more fuel for the anti-Earl people.

Now say Earl wins. So what? He's got to be expected to win, even with a break adjustment, so a win gets him nothing except the opportunity to be seen beating a very popular "girl." Allison gets nothing from a Strickland win for the same reason she gets nothing if she wins.

Also, does Cuetec really want their two name players pitted against each other? Maybe they do, but I'd be awful leery about putting Earl in the spotlight, playing against Allison, where just about every word out of Earl's mouth could alienate more and more fans. Heck, can you imagine the outrage if he made Allison cry with his antics?

If Allison could match Earl straight-up, and if Earl wasn't so Earl, I'd like this idea. But a straight-up match would be a joke, and Earl is extremely Earl, so I'd be very surprised to see this match happen.

For nearly a week now I've been nearly completely incapacitated by Plantar Fasciitis. The common name for this is "Heel Spurs," but in reality the formation of heel spurs can be a result of plantar fasciitis.

From About.com:
"The condition is diagnosed with the classic symptoms of pain well localized
over an area of the bottom of the foot near the heel. Often the pain is most
severe when you first stand on the foot in the morning. The condition is
sometimes, but not always, associated with a sudden gain of weight.

In many cases the pain will gradually subside throughout the day as normal
activities stretch the plantar fascia, the ligament that, when there is
inflammation present, causes the condition of plantar fasciitis."

In my case, the pain has remained pretty much constant each day, and my normal activities have been reduced to mincing around on the balls of my feet to keep pressure off my heels. This also helps to stretch the ligament and that eases the pain somewhat. An added bonus is that I constantly look like I've just shit my pants.

It took me several days to figure out what I'd done to piss my heels off so much. I just got a new table, so I'm playing a lot, but no more than I've played almost every day for the past 9 months. Making room for the new table also involved some demolition work, so I suspected for a short time that carrying around rocks and a sledge hammer may have caused the inflammation, but the demolition work was done weeks ago, and I had no symptoms until early this week. I have not experienced any recent weight gains so that wasn't the problem either.

Last night I got some new inserts for my shoes, and since they cushion my heels very well I went down to shoot some pool. That's where I figured out what was causing my problem.

My new table is larger than my old one, and features much tighter pockets. I found that to maintain the same accuracy I was forced to change my head's position relative to my cue. I needed to have my head lower and farther back.

The problem was in the way I was making this adjustment. Instead of stepping into the shot from farther back to begin with, I was assuming my normal stance, then rocking backwards until my head was in the new, more accurate, position. Basically I was shifting my weight from being evenly distributed across my feet to being almost all on my heels.

I normally play pool 6-8 hours every day, and having that weight on my heels for that much time is, I'm convinced, what caused my condition.

I've got a few more days of taking it easy to look forward to, but the pain is lessening, and I'm confident that I'll be back to normal within a week. You can bet I'll be more careful about settling into my stance from now on. I'm too young to have what's commonly a condition for middle-aged men.

I suppose the point to this is that balance when shooting is very important, not only to provide a stable base from which to swing the cue, but also to prevent painful conditions such as plantar faciitis.

Left untreated, plantar fasciitis can lead to the formation of bone spurs, and the treatment for those is normally surgery to remove the spurs. Doesn't sound like fun to me.

I met up with Fred Agnir Monday night at The Bank Shot in Louisville. I'd really been looking forward to playing against Fred since I've been assuming that he and I played about the same speed.

I was right. We ended up playing two sets of 9 ball and one set of 8 ball. In the first (9 ball) set, Fred had me down 7-2 racing to 9 but I finally found my focus and squeaked out a 9-8 victory.

The next set was race to 9 in 8 ball, and again we went hill-hill and I somehow managed to put the final 8 ball into a pocket 2.26" wide to take that set as well.

The last set was a race to 7 in 9 ball. Fred pulled ahead 4-2, then I pulled ahead 5-4, and inevitably we ended up tied on the hill at 6-6. I won that game on an el-cheapo 1-9 combination to take the final set.

Any of the sets could have easily gone the other way. My breaks were working a little better than Fred's. His safeties were a lot better than mine. Fred's shotmaking was very good, my speed control was a little better than his. If a few rolls had gone the other way Fred could have taken all three sets.

Fred may correct me on this, but I think we were both playing at about our average speed. You know how sometimes you just play good enough to win? Well I think Fred and I were both doing just that. When I stepped it up a notch Fred followed suit easily, and vice-versa. It would be interesting to match up against Fred for some serious play, but I think we'd still end up pretty even.

I really enjoyed playing against Fred, though I was a little concerned he'd pop a vein or something because of this magic corner pocket that seemed to deflect all his shots while letting mine go right in no matter how much I cheated the pocket.

One final note: Don't scratch on the break playing Fred in 8 ball. He will apparently run out on you every time.

Greg Miller wrote...
> How about these rules:
> 1. Alternating breaks.
> 2. A legal break would require a specified number of balls
> to hit the head rail rather than the now 4 balls hitting any
> rail(s).
> 3. Break from a very narrow box, say 4" wide, centered on
> the long string from the head string to the head rail.

Of these, I like number 3 the best, but my all-time favorite solution would be the one I suggested a while ago in another thread about the Sardo:

Lag for first break, trailer breaks all subsequent games. If another tie develops, the person that just got tied (not the person who caught up) breaks the next game. Then back to trailer breaks, and so on.

This still allows for multiple-rack runs if someone is making a comeback, and if both players are making a ball consistently it should make for some pretty close matches.

Plus I think this option has the advantage, like alternating breaks would, of not changing the rules of the game or the placement of the rack or the cueball at all.

Frank Brent wrote...
> Barenada disposed of Frank B 7-4 in 9-ball and 7-2 in 8-ball to claim
> KOH's in the Louisville, KY area. Despite an off night Barenada easily
> handled his opponent at the Bank Shot on a Diamond pro-cut 9' table. In
> a post match interview Barenada expressed hope that other RSB/ASP
> players would come forth and challenge him in future Louisville area
> KOH matches.

We also snuck in a game of banks which was a joke, taking nearly a half hour to complete. I officially won it 5-4, but we had both lost count at one point so the game may have really gone to Frank 5-4.

Once I finally found some semblance of a stroke, and Frank managed to bring his tall frame into alignment, we had a pretty decent set of 9 ball where I squeaked out a 7-6 win. I think at that point we both decided to quit while were somewhat less disgusted with ourselves than we'd been the rest of the night.

One of the interesting things (to me anyway) was that after dropping a 3-rail and a 4-rail bank during the first set, I realized I had a chance at the cycle. Alas, it was not meant to be as I made several 1-rail banks but scratched on my only 2-rail attempt. I think the shot went in, though.

A true pool nut, Frank dug into his case and whipped out a bunch of pictures of cues and tables. The pictures of his very old Brunswick table showed it to be absolutely beautiful.

I'd been hoping to get in some one-pocket, and we had earlier discussed making one-pocket the last set of the night, but we were both shooting so poorly that the regular one-pocket shooters that hang out in there would probably have heckled us mercilessly.

SSinn78667 wondered...
> I am curious, after reading the reaction to the Post
> on Allison's win in Georgia at the Viking tour event
> I wonder how many members of RSB actually think they
> can beat Allison Fisher even 9 ball.

Well SSinn78667, I predict that you'll get replies that are either too humble or too ambitious. I'll start with my honest opinion that Allison would kill me. Ditto for Jeanette, Karen, Ewa, and Vivian.

Gerda and Loree Jon wouldn't even have to shoot - their beauty alone would destroy any chance I'd have.

On a really good day I think I could take Jennifer.

Ken Bour wrote...
> I thought about trying some other thing to put there
> that wasn't round and slippery, but nothing quickly
> came to mind.

Now I think this is a pretty strange exercise, but here goes anyway:

TOP 10 THINGS TO PUT IN YOUR ARMPIT TO HELP YOUR STROKE

10. Baby chicken
9. Bar of soap
8. Snowball
7. 2 lb. barbell
6. Small child's head
5. Cat
4. Raw egg
3. Scrambled egg
2. Shoe
1. Tennis ball

Ken Bour wrote... (snip)
> My problem is having the discipline to work on the
> above. It seems that I would rather just toss 5 or
> 6 balls on the table and try to run them in sequence.
> When I miss, I curse, mutter, and stammer. When I make
> them, I toss another 5-6 out there... (snip)

I've always been pretty bored with drills as well, but I also realize that just throwing the balls out and shooting them in is not the best practice. I've started to combine the two methods like this:

1. Throw balls 1-9 and the CB onto the table so that each ball has at least one pocket - no tight clusters.

2. Use ten hole-reinforcement stickers to mark the balls' positions.

3. Run the balls without missing, getting way out of shape, or hitting any other balls unnecessarily. Don't cheat, even if you're kicking at the one. If you screw up, put the balls back and start the run again, making changes to your plan as you see fit.

4. Once you've successfully ran out, throw the balls back onto the table. Put the one on the closest spot, the two on the closest empty spot, and so on. The CB gets the last unoccupied spot.

5. Repeat steps three and four until you're learned about all you're going to learn from those spot positions. About 10 times seems to be average for me. Then take off the spots and go back to step one.

I've found this to be really good practice. Many times I've found myself kicking at the one because it's the only way to get on the two. It's really reminded me of the importance of planning ahead. And if (when) I do make a mistake I can just respot the balls and start over.

Just thought I'd throw in my report of the goings-on so far. When I left this evening the 9-ball was down to 48, with the 8 PM matches just beginning. I noticed quite a few more pros there for the 9-ball than I'd seen for the other two events.

So far, my pick to win the 9-ball is Buddy Hall. He shot .886 in beating Howard Vickery, and regrouped after a couple of mistakes to take care of Dennis Hatch. Last year's winner, Troy Frank, won a long, tough match against an older guy (Hal White I think), and I know he must have been pretty mentally exhausted by that match - I know everyone watching the match was.

Nick Varner is, well, Nick Varner. I don't think he's really been tested yet in the 9-ball. Ginky and Banks winner Shannon Daulton were just starting a match on the TV table when I left. Daulton seemed pretty unbeatable in his earlier matches.

While I was watching the Frank/White match I sat behind Danny DiLiberto, and listening to him chatter away with his old crony buddies was pretty interesting. Every few minutes Grady Matthews would stop by and tell some story or another. I'd really like to see Grady do an autobiography some day as I know it would be hilarious.

The big action upstairs is just ridiculous. They're playing 10- ahead for $90,000. Apparently they've agreed that if they don't finish by the time the tournament ends, they're going to buy the table from Diamond, rent the action room themselves, and finish no matter what. I don't know the names of the two players, but the older guy was 3 ahead when I left.

Some tidbits:

Shannon Daulton has the worst taste in clothes on the planet.

Bill Stroud is a heckuva nice guy.

If you're Buddy Hall, and you've got Dennis Hatch 6-3 in a race to 7, Dennis will half-ass his way through the rest of the match.

If you've never seen Dennis Hatch or Roger Griffis in person before, you might get them confused (I did).

Howard Vickery uses an open bridge a lot - even on his breaks.

Nick Varner is using a soft break in 9-ball, and making the corner ball almost every time. Isn't this what Corey Deuel did that pissed Earl off in Milwaukee?

Ginky and I are exactly that same height.

Patrick Johnson opined... > Less squirt.

Of course you're right. When I took away most of the squirt then the swerve became the dominant factor, whereas with my old shaft I had them working in pretty good harmony.

After several hours tonight I've got my stroke adjusted to eliminate the swerve effect (for the most part), and so I reran my spin test. I can now report no appreciable difference in sidespin range between the new 314 and my old shaft. I did notice a tendency to over-draw the ball alot with the 314, but I'm prepared to assign responsibility for that to the fact that the 314 has a softer hit than the Schon shaft.

I still can't do a valid squirt test with the 314. The pivot point is somewhere in my butt (of my cue :)) and the friction caused by the finish, along with the very awkward stroking position, makes a consistent squirt test impossible.

Another thing - I'm unable to jump very well at all with the 314 on my cue. Even with the Schon shaft I'm no Sammy Jones, but I can clear most reasonable obstructions. With the 314 it pretty much needs to be a Hellen Keller jump shot for me to be able to clear the obstructing ball.

And another thing - When I first played with this thing this afternoon it was 52 degrees in my basement. Tonight for my practice I had the temperature at a more reasonable 70 degrees. This certainly affected my cushion performance but I'm not sure how.

I have two. First is a "stun-run-thru" shot where you hit slight above center and firm to, in theory, follow a short distance. This is supposed to be better than slow-rolling in many cases. My control of the amount of follow with these shots is laughable.

Also, controlling the amount of draw when I have to elevate my cue is very tough for me. I can stop the cue-ball, and I can draw it back the length of the table. Anything in between is pretty much random for me. My draw control is fine unless I have to elevate my cue.

Just purchased a 314 shaft for my Schon from Joe Salazar's table at the Derby City Classic. After I got home I knocked some balls around with it. Here are my initial impressions:

1. Sound. The sound is a lot quieter than with my old shaft. The familiar "tink" is gone, in fact there is no metallic sound at all. It sounds like my cousin's McDermott.

2. The squirt test. I couldn't get the CB to spin in place before I ran out of shaft to pivot from. I guess this means that it's a lot less squirty than my old shaft, which had a pivot point of 14".

3. Maximum spin. I put the CB on the foot spot and shot at the center of the head rail with maximum right. With lag speed, and using a conventional straight stroke, I consistently hit about 4" to the far side of the side pocket. With my old shaft the best I could do with a conventional stroke was to hit the point on my side of the pocket (to my great shame). With a swerve stroke and my old shaft I could hit the far side of the pocket by 4" fairly consistently. With a swerve stroke and the 314 I can regularly hit the rail 8" to the far side of the pocket. I am getting more english with the 314.

4. More squirt. When shooting the shots in #3 with the 314 I noticed that the CB was hitting an inch or so to the right of the head rail's center diamond. With my old shaft, and a swerve stroke I hit the center diamond dead-on. I could not see any obvious CB curve to the right with the 314, so I don't know why I kept hitting to the right of my aiming point.

5. Things that make this unscientific. My 314 shaft is about 12.5mm, and my old Schon shaft is about 13.25mm. The 314's tip is tighter than a dime radius, and the Schon's tip is right at a dime. The 314's tip was a little thicker, but my Schon's tip is only a couple of weeks old so it's still pretty thick.

6. Things that bias the observer. I bought the 314 expectng it to behave exactly the way it is, except for the noise which I had no preformed notions about. It is possible that I subconsciously modified my stroke to favor the 314 in these tests.

One of two great lines I heard this past week. Perhaps Fred remembers the other one.

Old guy is playing Tang Hoa in 9-Ball, losing badly, and says, "You're a pretty easy opponent."

Tang jerks his head around and asks, "What makes you say that?"

Old guy responds, "All I have to do is kick every now and then, and rack. Pretty easy."

My first table was a 3x6 bar table. Heck, for a while I had it shoved into a corner of my living room and I could only shoot from two sides. I think any pool table is better than no pool table. In the case of a 3x6, I think you'll find it makes for pretty good practice of cue-ball control and cluster breaking. If you play a lot of 8-ball on a 3.5x7 then practicing on a 3x6 could help your game a lot. If you play a lot of 9-ball then it won't help you as much since cue-ball control is not as critical, but again, even a small table is better than no table, IMO.

Another thing about smaller tables - there aren't any long shots (duh) - so you'll probably have more runouts than you might have on a bigger table. This can really help your confidence and make solo practicing more fun.

I wouldn't pay much more than $300 or so for a 3x6 table. Most of the time when these things go up for sale it's because either the owner (a)bought a bigger table, or (b)just didn't want the table anymore. In either case they're usually pretty anxious to sell.

barenada wrote...
> Patrick Johnson wrote...
>> What does "takes a different angle off the OB" mean?
>
> I was talking about the fact that, using this method, I
> don't have to allow for squirt, so I don't have to
> compensate in selecting my CB/OB contact point. I can
> use the same contact point I'd be using with no english
> at all. So the path the CB takes off the OB is different
> than it would be if I had allowed for squirt and moved my
> contact point accordingly.

Dave you don't know what you're talking about. The CB/OB contact point can't change if you still want to make the shot. Saying the contact point was different just because you weren't allowing for squirt was just plain stupid. If you had gone to the trouble of actually going and shooting some shots you'd have realized that the reason that the path the CB takes off the OB when you're using this fancy new swerve stroke is different is because you're not getting as much follow/draw as you would with a more conventional stroke. This can be confirmed by using your fancy swerve stroke on some plain-jane english shots - no follow or draw - and noting that in these cases the CB path off the OB is identical to what you'd expect with a regular stroke.

tom simpson wrote:
> Dave,
>
> How are you doing the Kinister/Hall et al swerve without
> involving your wrist? As far as I know, curling the wrist is
> the whole idea. It's how they pivot the stick on the hit
>stroke.

I'd say when I do it my it's my forearm and elbow making the swerve. I haven't had a chance to tape myself to see what's really happening yet, but I'm sure it's not my wrist because when I tried to do it with just my wrist I was barely able to hit the cue-ball at all. I just kind of swerve the tip like I'm trying to "rub" the english on. I'll tell you it's a lot easier to do that it is to describe. My tip stays pretty level during the stroke - at least as level as it can for someone with a push stroke like me. I have no trouble hitting the CB high and getting the desired results, so there mustn't be too much of a dip - other than the shooter himself :) - involved.

tom simpson wrote:
> I'm wondering whether the twisting motion it takes to
> execute this stroke might be causing additional CB curve? In
> both the outside and inside twists, the wrist is curling
>sideways and UPward, which will make the tip swipe sideways
>and DOWNward into the CB. This additional curve effect (if
>it's real) would wash out against the squirt. Anyone?

I can't really comment on this, since I don't really get my wrist involved. That takes more coordination than I've been blessed with. It does make sense though that introducing a downward component to your stroke could cause a bit of a masse' effect. If this is happening, I'd say that a curve is even less desirable than squirt (At least squirt is straight). Of course for shorter distances the curve may not have time to "take" so this may still be better than having to allow for squirt when using a more conventional stroke.

Just thought I'd throw in my $.02 here.

After watching Bert's deflection tape I tried his technique out on a type of shot I've always had trouble with - hard hit shots nearly straight-in with top right or top left.

The fact is, for me, that steering the cue tip into the cue-ball contact point instead of using a straight stroke into the contact point has GREATLY reduced squirt-induced misses for me on these shots.

The amount of english seems to be the same, but the CB takes a different angle off the OB (don't have to allow for squirt) so it's kind of hard ot tell for sure - it's certainly very close to the same amount.

As Tom just pointed out, the physics here are very similar to the squirt test in the FAQ. What I found is that for me at least my bridge doesn't need to be at the pivot point. Perhaps the difference is because I'm not shooting straight along the revised line, I'm curving my tip into the CB.

Tom's right. Just because it's in a book (or a tape) doesn't make it gospel. But then again, just because Tom doesn't do it doesn't make it undoable.

My right eye has problems as well - although it's not as bad as yours seems to be. Do you still have usable depth perception? Can you stand at the head on the table and discern the different distances between the foot rail, a ball an inch off the foot rail, and a ball 2 inches off the foot rail?

If you've still got adequate depth perception, and you can see pretty well with your left eye, I think you can get used to it. You may have to become more of an FP to do it though.

I see pretty fuzzy balls from more than 3 or 4 feet away, and I've just gotten used to aiming at them. I can't wear my glasses when I shoot because it forces me to bend my neck up too much, and that puts too much strain on my neck after a short while. My depth perception is still good so I don't really have to change anything except my attitude towards aiming at fuzzy blobs of color instead of at clean crisp balls.

If your depth perception has suffered too much to keep the same stance you may want to consider raising up to get a better view of the angles when you shoot. You'll have to be more careful of your alignment since that gets harder to judge the higher your head gets.

Another option to help make up for the loss of depth perception is to raise and lower your head a few inches several times as you take your practice strokes. I know this is not "by the book" but the books assume good vision with both eyes and strong depth perception. A friend of mine who lost an eye was able to become a pretty good player by bobbing his head in this manner. The slight change in perspective allowed his mind to generate a 3D view of the table even though his body wasn't capable of seeing in 3D anymore.

Ron Shepard wrote:
> Sorry Dave, but geometry, inches, and angles are all analysis, not
> "feel".

I think analysis is quite useful when I'm not shooting. I would never think about any of this stuff in getting ready to shoot, but since it was pointed out to me I find it pretty interesting - especially since it was a completely new subject for me.

There's a bit of a misconception here. As an FP, I do not simply tra-la-la through life and then rely on my good looks to make the shots for me. I like to analyze things and try new techniques - just not when I'm shooting. Knowledge gained from books, videos, other players, etc has proven invaluable to my game. What makes me an FP is not a lack of knowledge, or even a lack of proper technique (some will disagree with that), but the fact that when I shoot a shot I rely on what FEELS right regarding alignment, speed, english, stroke quality, and so on, instead of what I CALCULATE to be right. Another big thing about being an FP is a lack of choreographed steps involved in getting into shooting position and shooting. What we lack in consistency in this area I feel we more than make up in relaxation and mental awareness.

Unless the balls are super clean I can shoot at a frozen kiss shot and either pull or push the first OB off the tangent line with draw or follow. This be very helpful in making these kiss shots that are very close but not quite "on".

Tom Bellhouse wrote:
> Very interesting, but how do you take shot length into account,
> when keeping that angle constant? Stand further away for long
> shots, closer for short ones?

I seem to be maintaining the view of the cue-ball instead of, say, the center of the cue-ball's path to the object ball. Except for stretch shots I can stand the same distance from the cue-ball while surveying every shot.

It would make more sense if I maintained perspective on a point more towards the center of the shot's action, wouldn't it? It works for me maintaining a perspective on the cue-ball. I suppose it could work equally well for other people using perspectives - object ball, cue-ball path's midpoint, etc. I think the important thing is to maintain perspective on something throughout the movement so your brain has something to tie the two images together.

A few nights ago I was sitting in the pool room having a few brews and there's this kid practicing 8-ball on the table in front of me. Someone had taught this kid some of the fundamentals of proper stance, stroke, follow-thru, etc and he appeared to be concentrating pretty well. What his tutor had apparently failed to tell him about was to keep a level cue.

Anytime this poor guy used any english he'd miss the shot. Then he'd set it up again and shoot it carefully - usually without english this time - and make it. This pattern went on for an hour or so, interrupted occasionally by him breaking the rack and sending the cue-ball flying at my head. He was trying the 8-ball break where you put the cue-ball near the side rail and hit the second ball back in the rack with draw. Since nobody had told him about keeping his cue level he was making a normal bridge on top of the rail. He was also striking the cue-ball well below center and shooting hard. After the fourth or fifth near miss I finally managed to catch his flying cue-ball in mid-air. I told him I would only give it back to him if he would listen to some advice on how to prevent it. Since he wanted his cue-ball back he had to agree.

I demonstrated a few good rail bridges and managed to convince him that he should strive to keep his cue as level as possible to prevent the cue-ball from curving or bouncing. I had to show him a few curve shots and jump shots to get my point across since he'd learned from his dad and his dad had never mentioned it.

The first time this kid broke with a level cue he snapped the eight in, so I had him hooked. We played for a while and I pointed out several small things like how sometimes he'd jump up from the shot too soon or he'd forget to chalk up before every shot, simple stuff like that.

I ran into him again tonight and he thanked me and told me that he'd learned something from just watching me shoot that was helping him even more than those things I'd specifically told him about, and that's the subject of this post. (This was before he started criticizing my stroke mechanics - that's another topic.)

Ever notice how just about all formal instruction on getting into a proper shooting stance starts with standing behind the shot, aligning various body parts with the line of the shot, then bending various other body parts to get into the stance itself? Why not just squat down and shoot? You'd have to change your alignment points before you squatted, but you'd end up with the exact same stance.

I think I know why you shouldn't just squat. The problem is going to be putting it into less than 1000 words and still getting my thoughts across clearly. But I really think this information can be valuable so I won't sacrifce clarity for brevity's sake.

First, and I hope everyone agrees with me here, shot angles are easier to see from an upright position. You don't see good players going around peering over the rails to plan their next shot. You plan your shots while your still standing up, while you can see the angles better. Once you bend into your stance, depending on how high your head is, you may still see the angle fairly well (upright like Bob Byrne) or you may only see a two-dimensional view of the balls (down low like Allison Fisher). The transition from seeing the shot well to being in position to execute the shot is critical. Ideally you want this transition to be smooth, so as you get into shooting position the view changes as slowly as possible - allowing your brain to keep up with the changing perspective. This means that information gained while standing up is (to your brain) still relevant once you get into your stance. There is no discontinuity caused by a too-abrupt change in perspective.

As an extreme example of this discontinuity, plan the shot while standing up then close your eyes as you get into your stance, then open them once you're set up. If you're like me at this point you have only a general idea of the angles involved in making the ball and moving the cue-ball into position for the next shot. The sudden change of perspective has caused your mind to throw out the information you obtained while standing. This discontinuity can happen any time the transition from standing to shooting position is too sudden for the brain to associate the two different perspectives into a complete image of the same shot.

So how do you minimize this discontinuity? By stepping into the shot instead of just getting into your stance. Find the shot while standing and keep looking at the shot as you move, straight along the shot-line, into your stance. This is what all the books and tapes say, but I've never seen any reasoning behind it, just references to choreographed consistency.

By paying attention to my pre-shot routine (such as it is, I'm an FP remember), it turns out that the angle formed with my eyes, the cue-ball, and the surface of the table is EXACTLY the same from the time I'm standing to the time I'm in my shooting stance. This cannot be a coincidence. It's just something I've unconsciously picked up over the years as the best way to get into position. It's like evolution. My mechanics have evolved, with no conscious thought, to the proper way to minimize this discontinuity. I think this is pretty darn cool.

My eyes in shooting position, are about 16" above and 28" behind the cue-ball. When standing my eyes are about 34" above the cue-ball. Run these numbers through some high school geometry and you can calculate the distance I must stand from the cue-ball to have the same viewing angle that I have in my stance. Plugging in numbers for other players' heights and in-stance head positions and you can figure out where they should stand to minimize the discontinuity. It turns out that more erect players should stand closer to the shot before getting into their stance and players with a lower head position should stand farther back. The chin-scrapers, in order to make full use of this, would have to stand back an impractible distance (people would think they were forfeiting the game) so they have to compensate for the increased difference in perspective by settling into their stance more slowly.

I hope this made sense. I plan to dig out my accu-stats tapes tomorrow and see if I can confirm that people are actually doing this.

I got into a little discussion with my newest student tonight about arm angles - specifically the angle between the grip forearm and the floor at the point of contact. Books will tell you that a proper stroke has the forearm pointing straight at the floor at the point of contact. My student pointed out to me that my forearm is perpendicular to the floor at the end of my final backswing, and that at the moment my cue hits the cue-ball my forearm is pointing forward about 30 degrees. He suggested that this indicated a flaw in my stroke. A summarization of the discussion that followed is here:

There are three type of strokes. One is what I call a "pull" stroke. The grip forearm is pointing down and away from the cue-ball at the point of contact. To accomplish this I would have to grip my cue at the very back end of the wrap. The second stroke I call a "coast" stroke. This is where the forearm is pointing straight down at contact, and this is what most books seem to recommend. The third type of stroke, and the one I use, I call a "push" stroke. The grip hand is nearer to the front of the wrap, and the forearm, at contact, is pointed down and forward as described above.

A pull stroke is so-named because you're still pulling the cue forward (with your bicep) at the point of contact and shortly thereafter. In a push stroke your bicep has taken a lesser role to other muscles by the time contact occurs. Your elbow drops as your shoulder continues to move the stick forward. I know this is considered by many to be a bad thing but I do have a point. The coast stroke is one in which, at contact, your bicep has no more work to do, and your shoulder doesn't get involved at all - the stick is more or less coasting.

Now I'm a feel player, and I didn't analyze any of this until years after my stroke had been established. As a feel player I just picked at some point the proper stroking style (for me). After thinking about this some I think I know why I ended up with a push stroke.

A pull stroke I feel is bad because I can't get the proper feel for the speed of the shot. I also don't think that the bicep is a good muscle to count on for the numerous tiny variations in speed that come up during play. A coast stroke affords me no feel for the shot whatsoever. There are no muscles active at contact. I could just as well throw the cue at the cue-ball and get the same feedback from the hit. I think I use a push stroke because it gives me the most feedback at contact. Everything from the shoulder down is active, and all those muscles moving gives me very good feedback - especially on the speed of the shot, but also for the amount of any spin I may be imparting to the cue-ball. Speed and quality of stroke can be infinitely adjusted with the bicep, the shoulder muscles, or a combination of both. Sometimes the triceps can even get into the act.

With a push stroke cue stick acceleration also becomes easier. Instead of relying on just the bicep to smoothly accelerate the cue through the shot, I can start with the bicep and add in the shoulder muscles as needed.

I know that the moment of contact is supposed to be so small that feedback becomes irrelevant. I know that many will feel that using a push stroke, with all those muscles involved, can add unnecessary complication to a stroke. But what I also know, and what's most important to me, is that getting a proper feel for each shot as I shoot it is a big part of my game as a feel player.

I welcome debate on this, but what I'm really interested in is what type of stroke the rest of you use. You MPs already know, but you FPs may need to actually stroke a ball and pay attention how you hit it. I'm curious as to whether any other FPs have also adopted a push stroke - possibly for the same unconscious reasons I have.

Ken,

I'm too lazy to go downstairs and get the book, but if I recall correctly what BB considers to be of "little use in actual play" is any SPIN transferred to the object ball. I think he does point out that this transferred spin can have a big impact on bank shots, but not on regular shots. I don't think BB feels that "get-in-english" is a viable tool.

Throw is of course different than transferred spin and I'd bet large amounts that BB points out many times how throw can be very useful.

Also, BB just posted here about some billiards research he's doing, so maybe he'll answer your question himself.

As long as we're on the topic of instructional books, I have a small gripe. Most, if not all, of the books I've read state that english on the cue-ball does not affect the path the cue-ball takes after contact. I've always felt this was a little misleading. The cue-ball path will always start out perpendicular to the line-of-centers at contact, right? What all of the books fail to mention (in this context) is that when you use english you've got to adjust the contact point to allow for the change in throw. This adjustment changes the line-of-centers, and that changes the tangent line that the cue-ball takes. So in a roundabout way using english DOES affect the cue-ball path after contact.

Of course, I've never written any books, let alone made any videos, so IMHO IMHO IMHO IMHO.

Mike Page wrote:
> Do you mean to suggest you can't have a stiff cue with a soft hit?

I made no such suggestion. There was no secret code message imbedded in the simple list I posted. I also made no attempt to define "Stiff Hit" or "Soft Hit". I simply listed listed the cues I've shot with in increasing order of Stiffness-Of-Hit - as I understand that term.

While of course every cue is different, and transient things like tip hardness can also affect the hit of a cue, I do think that they can be generally grouped by Stiffness-Of-Hit. Stiffness-Of-Cue is, IMO, a completely different thing and cannot generally be used to desribe any particular cuemaker's works.

As I write this there have been 53 messages posted to this thread since it diverged from the original "Stance question". And in these 53 posts, I haven't seen any outright trolls or from-the-hip responses like "FPs rule, MPs drool". We've stuck to the subject at hand, and not once has anyone stopped being polite and respectful of other peoples' opinions. This has got to be some kind of record.

I could spend the next few hours replying, one at a time, to the dozen or so messages that that been posted here since I last logged on - and I congratulate Ken B. on having the patience to do just that - but I'm taking the lazy way out and just replying to the group.

Being an FP does not mean that you lack knowledge or maturity. I don't think the MP who first suggested this meant any insult, but if someone suggested to me that my game was ignorant and/or immature to my face I would certainly take umbrage. I'd put my pool knowledge up against just about anyone, I just access that information differently than a typical MP would. As for an FPs game being immature, well that's one of those words that's insulting without being too specific, but again I have to disagree with the spirit of statements like that. How do you define maturity in a person's pool game? One way I define it is "Using knowledge, temperament, and ability to locate and execute the best shot in any given situation." Anyone who's progressed far enough has that ability, whether they're FP, MP, or whatever.

There has been some discussion here regarding memory. Some MPs have expressed the opinion that FPs lack the ability to recall shots, runouts, etc. I completely disagree with this. That fact that my mind is not focused on kinesthetic details for each shot means that I'm able to use those extra neural circuits for an awareness of the table that, IMHO, your typical MP simply does not have. I may not be able to decribe how I hit a certain shot with anything other than vague generalities, but I'll never say "Duhhh. What six ball?", and if you set the shot up for me again I'll not only tell you how I hit it, but I'll be able to hit it again, almost exactly much the same way, without needing to go through any choreographed steps to assure proper alignment, english, etc. How is this worse than an MP's ability to recall the shot in extreme detail? How does an MP objectively accurately explain shot speed, amount of spin, and amount of "punch" in a stroke? The answer is that you can't, and neither can an FP. The knowledge is, however, still there for the player's future use. Any inherent difference between MPs and FPs regarding memory is, IMHO, nonexistent. Some people remember things, and make use of that learned knowledge later, and some people don't.

Well I've managed to miss-hit a key and my browser is stuck in full-screen mode, so you people get a break for now. I'll cut this post short.

I think you've made a good point Tom. I know when my game is a little off I'll actively "practice" each shot in my head before I bend over and shoot it for real. Taking a couple of practice stroke into the air while envisioning the shot helps me complete the effect. When I'm shooting well, however, I don't need these mental rehearsals. I just see the shot, step into it, and let it go.

Tom Bellhouse wrote: (Blah)
> So I wonder if the MP vs FP dichotomy is really just a matter
> of level of analysis, conscious vs unconscious. The feel > player does analyze, but just uses different tools (imagery)
>fed by experience. None of this "1/3 tip of right English
>and a 5/32 hit on the object ball with 75% of available power"
>stuff. Just "see" the shot, and then make the real shot match
>the imagined one. Grip it, imagine it and *then* rip it.

Okay, let me see if I've got these straight. You people scoring at home can check me.

FP - Feel Player (obsolete?)
IP - Intuitive Player (replaces FP)
MP - Mechanical Player (obsolete?)
AP - Analytical Player (replaces MP)
ZP - Zen Player (hypothetical)
EP - Emotional Player

Let's add some more:

BP - Beginning Player (hasn't chosen a path yet)
RP - Random Player (keeps switching styles)
SSP - Secret Society Player
PP - What you do first thing in the morning

Ron Shepard wrote:
> Another way to tell what kind of player someone is is to ask
> them some question about some detail of a shot when they are
> in dead stroke. I think the FPs will just give you a blank
> stare and ask "what 6-ball?".

I don't think this is quite true. I can certainly recall things like where the CB and OB were in relation to each other and what path the CB took to the next ball. I'll also have a vague recollection of what english and speed were used on the shot, but to really recall those physical elements I'd have to set the shot up again, hit it again, and take note of how I hit it.

That's only for recent games and matches. Older memories are much fuzzier, although that may be due to age and alcohol. I do have a pretty good memory of some various key shots in the past, but again only circumstancial memory - not a complete play-by-play.

I think the examples you use about not knowing the day of the week would more readily apply to the hypothetical "Zen Player" than the "Feel Player".

Now, what were we talking about again?

Derek S. Ray wrote:
> lots of attention in about two hundred different directions

That's what I meant.

I figure I'll try to post this before Derek does since he and I seem to be in complete syncronization here. Maybe we should find a scotch doubles tournament somewhere to enter.

On page 133 of Capelle's 'A Mind for Pool' he lists 19 different definitions for Dead Stroke. I'm not going to enter that list here, not so much for fear of copyright infringement, but because I'm verbose enough without having to use someone else's words.

Of the 19 definitions listed, about 12 of them directly describe the FP style of play when it's going well. The other 7 are ambiguous and could apply to FPs and MPs equally. On page 134 the very first suggestion listed for getting into dead stroke is about as anti-MP and pro-FP as you can get.

Perhaps we could differentiate MPs and FPs like this: An MP is constantly striving to play their best, hoping for Dead Stroke, while an FP is constantly striving for (and expecting) Dead Stroke.

Think about it, you MPs who've experienced Dead Stroke. Did you maintain the same level of intensity, or did you "let go" a little bit and fall into a more FP style of play? I can guarantee that FPs who drop into Dead Stroke don't suddenly start analyzing everything.

Ron Shepard wrote:
> When things are working right, you can maintain mental focus
> for hours at a time. Mental exhaustion is not the main problem.

That's when things are working right, but what about when things aren't going so well? Say you're behind in a match and you know you just HAVE to run out to win. Does that force you to concentrate extra hard - even beyond the level you concentrate at when you're in stroke? I guess that's the scenario I was imagining would be mentally exhausting. Sure you feel great if you pull out the match, but can you jump right into another match with the same intensity? Also, what happens when, despite your best efforts, you fail in one of these pressure situations? That can be a pretty hard blow for the ego to take, having all that responsibility then falling short. How do you rebound from situations like that?

I've tried to play as an MP in the past myself, and maintaining that level of intensity proved to be nearly imposssible for me. Of course I also have the attention span of a three year old at a candy convention.

Richard Iachetta wrote:
> barenada says...
>> ...And don't even get me started on half-ball hits making 90%
>> of bank shots - it's like voodoo or something.

> Feel free to get started if you want. That sounds like a very
> interesting subject. Are you saying half ball hit most bank
> shots and control the rest with speed and english?

I'm still trying to figure this out myself, but of course I've got theories and (of course) I'm prepared to ramble on (and on) about them.

There seem to be 3 main categories of bank shots. One is a nearly natural shot where you hit the object ball close to head on. Another type requires a very thin hit. The third category is made up of shots needing a nearly half-ball hit.

The first category can usually be seen pretty well. The second category is usually the realm of one-pocket players and I'm not very good at them. The third category is the one that's freaking me out.

In one of Burt's tapes he keeps saying "Cue tip, thru the center of the cue-ball, to the outside edge of the object ball." Translated into regular speech patterns this becomes "No English and a half-ball hit."

After watching Burt make 100 or so bank shots, all the while repeating his mantra "Cue tip, thru the center of the cue-ball, to the outside edge of the object ball" I went downstairs and hit some banks. Anything that looked like it would require a nearly half-ball hit I just shot with no english and exactly a half-ball hit. The damn balls just kept banking in. It almost looked like I knew what I was doing. I remember telling myself that I wish I could bank like this in real life.

I think what's happening is that by taking contact point and english out of the list of variables you're only left with shot speed. Of course shot speed plays a very big part in determining the angle the OB takes off the rail, so you've still got a lot of potential paths for the OB to take off that rail. Eliminating the options for english and contact point does not have to stop the shot from going - as long as the "proper" contact is somewhere near a half-ball hit, then an actual half-ball hit, with the proper speed, can still make the shot.

The voodoo part, for me, is how effortless my banks have become. I put the OB on the footspot, the cue-ball on the head spot, and whack a half-ball hit at the right side of the OB. The OB banks back up into the left corner. I set up the same shot, but with the cue-ball two feet to the right this time, and a half-ball hit still puts the damn OB into the same corner. Obviously I'm varying my speed a lot between these two shots, since the english and the contact points are constant, but I'm completely unaware of making this adjustment.

A shot I've always had trouble with is this: Put the OB near the side rail, down-table a bit from the side pocket, and put the CB near the head spot. Try to cross over the OB and bank it into the opposite corner. I was about 25% on these shots until I started hitting them half-ball with no english. I'm probably about 70% on them now. I'm starting to look like a one-pocket player or something. Damndest thing I ever saw.

I know that a half-ball hit can produce the most throw, and that the collision speed also effects the amount of throw. Balls hit hard into a rail rebound at a greater angle than balls hit softly into a rail. So a softer half-ball hit will throw a lot, resulting in an apparent fuller hit, and open up the rebound angle, while a harder hit will result in an apparent thinner hit and a more closed rebound angle. You get an awful lot of leeway on a half-ball hit just by varying the speed.

Burt said himself that he didn't know why it worked as well as it did. I sure don't know either but it allows me to bank shots that I've never been comfortable with before. In the words of C.J. Wiley - "Hey, it works for me." And in the words of someone else - "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Tom Simpson wrote:
> The best method I've found for this is to focus exclusively
> on the intended RESULT and shoot without hesitation -- faster
> rhythm. It works, but my MP side doesn't trust it. ;^)

The ego wants to take credit for any good thing you do. It has a hard time being stuck in the back seat. When a FP is shooting well the ego is constantly interrupting with "Quite a little run here, huh? Better let me take over so we can keep it going." And after a miss it's "See! I told you! You can't shoot without me. If you had paid more attention to that shot you'd still be shooting."

Every shot that works, the ego claims as its own personal victory, and every miss gets blamed on the body. More mechanical players almost never assign misses to miscalculations. Instead the blame is shifted to the physical side. Too hard, poor stroke, improper alignment, etc. Always trying to claim the credit or shift the blame - quite a little politician, that ego.

Well this is a topic that can really get me going. I'm afraid this will be a long post.

As a hardcore feel player (is that an oxymoron?) I can tell you that my game is either really on or really off. Wihout consistent mechanical elements there is much more reliance on proper and consistent mental state - and that's something both types of players have problems with. In the event of an attitude breakdown, a more mechanical (I don't like that term, sounds robotic and uncaring) player at least has sound fundamentals to prevent too much slipping in his/her game. A feel player without the proper mental state may as well have stayed home. On the other hand, I often break and run a rack of 9-ball in under 30 seconds - I sometimes even string 2 or 3 together like that - and when that happens I feel exhilarated. I would imagine that the more mechanical players would take 5 minutes and feel mentally exhausted at that point.

I'm extremely interested in how things work on the table and why. I buy books and tapes study and them for any new insights or pointers. Even thought I don't usually think about this information while I'm playing I'm sure it's still there waiting to be useful. Imagine a feel player's game as a car going down the road. The body is the driver and the mind is sitting in the back seat giving directions. Sometimes the mind can be very helpful and the body takes the advice, but other times the mind turns into your mother-in-law and gets you lost.

The proper balance between mind and body for a feel player can be an elusive thing, but when that balance is there it's awful hard for a player to miss. Watch a good feel player when they're well balanced. When they do miss they get the most amazed look on their face. If Bustamante ever misses watch him - I'm sure he'll look amazed. More mechanical players, upon missing, aren't nearly as surprised - after all it could have been a hard shot, with lots of throw and squirt to contend with. In their minds they're already justifying the miss and trying to isolate the cause. A mechanical player will replay the shot in their mind, filing away all they can remember about the angle, speed, spin, etc in hopes of using that information the next time a similar shot comes up. A feel player will will just go "Hmmm. Overcut that ball. That was weird" and that's about it. Then the next time the feel player faces a similar shot, the mind will say something like "Don't cut this one so much", and the body takes it from there.

When any of my students (that's too formal - maybe protoge would be better, but I don't know how to spell it) reaches a point where they're sound mechanically but lacking consistency I give them a stack of photocopied pages from my various pool books with descriptions of throw, swell, and cling. I also throw in pages from Jack Koelher's book - the ones talking about margin of error on shots of varying length. Ron Shepard's excellent Pool Physics paper is added into the mix. Once I've given my student a feel for the multitude of factors that all need to be accounted for in making any given shot work, I point out even commiting all that information to memory is only part of the battle. You still need to make allowances for the speed of the table, condition of the balls, the levelness of the table and, depending on how picky you want to get, things like humidity, temperature, and the cue tip thickness can all contribute to the dozens (hundreds?) of things that need to go right for any particular shot.

So say you've got access to all this information - and a Cray supercomputer to perform your calculations for you - so now you know with absolute certainty where to hit the cue-ball, what direction to hit it in, and what speed to use to make the shot work. This information is still just another part of the battle. Now you've got to get your body to execute the shot perfectly. I don't know about you guys, but my body movements are just not that controllable.

So without access to a Cray you can't figure out how to shoot the shot. And without perfect body control you couldn't hit the exact spot anyway, so the questions becomes "What the fuck are you aiming at?" At this point I introduce my students to the be the ball, may the force be with you, Obi-wan Mosconi style of play. Some people, in all honesty, decide at that point that I'm a crackpot and look elsewhere for instruction. Others take my advice and invariably move there game up a notch or two. - and enjoy themselves more because it's not as mentally taxing to play by feel.

But I ramble.

The point I'm trying to make here is that all players - even the most mechanical ones (I have one in mind but she's got a lot of fans and I don't want to offend anyone) - have to play at least partly by feel. And if you're willing to give up any part of your game to feel, why not at least try the next logical step and give your entire physical game to the right side of your brain, and leave the left side in the back seat for a while? Remember, feel players do not stop thinking about what they're doing. They just have more separation between the conscious, analytical parts of their game and the physical part of their game. A mechanical player will consciously think about things like what tip placement will get my cue-ball to a certain point for a next shot. A feel player will just trust their body to move the cue-ball correctly. It's a beautiful thing when it works.

> while the FP's are held back by carelessness and too little
> knowledge.

I'd say that that statement is half true. Lack of knowledge is not what's holding me back. Carelessness is one of those words with too many meanings, but caring about each shot is definitely a problem for me at times.

Tom Simpson wrote:
> This is not stance. This is shooting with a shaft that has a
> pivot point around where his bridge is, and not
> understanding what that means. You might want to check Deja
> on this.

Thanks, Tom. I understand that what Burt's doing is very similar to the latest squirt test. I brought it up because the original poster mentioned that Burt's tape said that one of the main goals of a proper stance was to allow for a perfectly straight stroke with no "steering". I also brought it up because my Schon has a pivot point of 14" and my bridge is between 6" and 8" - but using this steering method still works very well for me. Even with my normal bridge in front of the pivot point the deflection is reduced enough to allow me to play these shots the way I like them - by feel, without having to estimate the deflection and curve, if any.

All of the points you made about various body parts being in alignment are correct and right out of the book(s). In my own personal experience, however, paying attention to where things like your chin and nose are in relation to your foot and elbow, while also trying to pay attention to the shot-at-hand, can be counter-productive.

I know there are probably a lot more good players with "correct" stances than there are players like me with a more casual interpretation of a proper stance so IMHO IMHO IMHO.

If 100 people respond to your questions you'll probably get 100 different answers. Here are the general guidelines that I use:

1. Be comfortable. You need to be able to get in and out of the stance for hours if necessary. For example I can't have my left arm locked straight for very long without tension appearing in that elbow - so I keep it as straight as I can without locking it.

2. Have freedom of movement in your grip hand and arm. Whether you're pushing/pulling the cue during the stroke or just letting gravity do most of the work is not nearly as important, IMO, as making sure that your own body doesn't interfere with your cue's motion. I, for example, cannot play for any length of time with my head way down like a snooker player - it just causes too much tension in my right shoulder after a while.

3. Have your head over the cue and your eyes level wth the table. A lot of people will talk about finding your dominate eye then having that directly over the shot, but I've found that for me the proper position is with the right side of my nose over the cue. The main thing here is to be consistent. Shoot some long straight shots without paying attention to your alignment. When you've got the shot locked in pretty well have someone look at you and tell you what part of your head is directly over the cue.

4. Be balanced. I like to have my weight evenly distributed between both legs, so I end up bending both knees slightly instead of, say, bending my left knee and leaning forward from my straight right leg. I could jump straight in the air from my stance. Some people prefer a different weight distribution. I don't have hardly any weight on my bridge hand - just enough to keep it on the table.

5. Stand close enough to the cue-ball that you can follow-through without inducing any stress into your grip arm.

I do think that having your torso perpendicular to the line of the shot is a bad idea since that would make you lean over to the side to get your head over the stick, and then you'd have to crick our neck the other way to get your eyes level. But hey, I've seen some pretty good players with stances a lot stranger than that. Regarding Burt's advice, in The Deflection Tape he changes his tune a little bit about steering the stick. I'm still trying to figure out how it works at all - let alone as well as it does. And don't even get me started on half-ball hits making 90% of bank shots - it's like voodoo or something.

LePheaux wrote:
> Foxx led in with>
> I play a dead stroke game of 9-ball your supposed to say, ya
> dead stroke fer sure , so dead I can smell the stink from here.
> were gonna have to work on this a bit Dave, when I do the set
> up, you step up

Trashing someone's game just for trashing's sake has never been my style. I have to assume that they're always trying their best. Why take a chance that they'll be offended by my joking remarks? Well, there's actually one guy in Kent that needs the trash talk to keep his ego somewhat in synch with his abilities. So I'm constantly teliing him things like Helen Keller says she'll give him the 8 but the 7 is too much so stop asking. Or (referring to his $1500 custom cue) that I saw his cue was on sale at KMart. Or my jack-handle broke can I borrow his cue for a minute.

With anyone else about as far as I'll go is something like this: You shoot a ball in the corner, using high-right to move Whitey around the table three rails to break up a cluster. It's a beautiful stroke, but you miss the cluster by 2mm. "Most people would have tried to break that out", I'll say, or "Do you need a do-over?" Things like that are obviously well-intentioned.

You and I can (obviously) disagree on several things and debate them with varying levels of intensity, but we don't know each other well enough to start trashing each other's game when we're not even at the table, IMO.

Ken Bour wrote...
> Ahhhhh, another proponent of cueball last aiming.

...because I had written:
> I've found that when I'm shooting my best I focus on the
> cue-ball. My eyes hardly ever leave the cue-ball from the time
> I shoot a shot until I get ready for the next shot.

Actually once the cueball stops moving I shift my focus to the object ball and the line of the next shot. I confirm my tip placement by just flicking my eyes down to the cue-ball a few times, but from the time Whitey stops moving until I hit the next shot my focus is on the object ball.

On break shots I do just the opposite - I look mainly at the cue-ball and just flick my eyes up to the rack to verify my alignment. On the actual break stroke I'm staring a hole in the cue-ball. I need to do this on the break because otherwise I have a hard time hitting the cue-ball correctly on such a hard stroke.

LePheaux wrote:
> I went through a winning streak at the beginning of that 9-ball
> session, and was expecting to go up. didn't happen. I also went
> into a loosing streak lost 6 out of seven matches and it didn't
> go down. oh well.

I really can't help you with the 9-ball system, as I know nothing about it except that I don't think it should be called 9-ball when the main goal of the game has shifted from making the 9 to ball count.

> I would like to think that a LO , would go by the books and
> wait to see what the #'s are before setting an average.

They do go by the books - the League Operator Manual and the franchise agreement. The handicap system is more than a series of equations where you plug numbers into a computer and out pops a skill level. Things like handicap review boards and yes, LO evaluation are an integral part of the system and one of the best ways to prevent handicap manipulation.

I'm sure there are less-then-honest LOs out there who play favorites. In fact I seem to remember hearing about an LO who was threatened with losing his franchise over it. I think you are quite lucky to live in an area with a LO like Gene.

Do me a favor, Rick, and try to put yourself into an honest player's shoes for a second. Imagine you're a 6 playing a lower-rated player, and after your match you feel that your opponent was under-rated. You bring your concerns to the LO. What would you rather hear at that point - That the scores are the scores and that's it, or that the LO will look into it and determine if your concerns have any merit. Take away the League Operator's ability to adjust inappropriate skill levels and you give the sandbaggers a free rein.

> his job is to be UN-BIASED.

Assigning a skill level that he thought you deserved is not being biased. If he had assigned you a level he knew was either too high or too low, due to some altruistic or antagonistic feelings towards you as a person, then that would be biased. It sounds to me like your initial skill level was pretty close to the mark since you say it remained constant throughout the session. I guarantee that you were not locked into your initial rating. If your play had improved or degraded enough then your skill level would have shifted accordingly.

> I go with black and white, the actual #'s of the score sheet.
> To decide a persons average otherwise is dis-honest. cut and
> dried.

I'm sorry, did you just say that using anything other than the scoresheet numbers is dishonest? Aren't you the same person that recently admitted sandbagging to put false numbers on the scoresheet?

> some times I would start a season out as a 10, and loose a game,
> once ya go down from a 10, it's almost mathematically impossible
> to go back up do to the win lose system.

I had the same thing happen to me a couple of times, and it's true - it's really hard to go back up. Is this supposed to be a good thing? I imagine a guy who's a legitimate high 9 in BCA. He starts out as a 10, loses a couple games, then drops to a 9. Now he goes out and gets lessons, plays tournaments, whatever, and improves his game to the point where he's now a legitimate 10-level player. Because of the way this and similiar systems calculate the ratings this guy gets to play under-rated for the rest of the season - and you can't even call him a sandbagger UNLESS he dumped those early games on purpose (and we both know that never happens, right?)

> and there's no runaways because the other teams are in the same
> division are loading up there teams as well.

This works as long as you stay local. Will you at least admit that a team of 9's and 10's from, say, Maplewood Indiana, would probably get their hats handed to them by a team of 9's and 10's from Chicago? The win/loss systems do not give any indication of any given player's ability to play - just their ability to win against other players from their own division/city.

> I personally think in the long run the APA will graft ideas from
> other leagues and vice a versa.

There will (not) be a perfect handicapping system in any sport as long as there are people out there willing and able to sandbag. Well this thread has turned into quite the Rick and Dave show, hasn't it?

Mountain Mike^^ wrote:
> Dave, is it a fact that *innings* are the only criteria for your
> SL? For example, if a guy loses every match, but only takes 2
> innings per game, does his SL go down? What's the reasoning,
> please?

A few years ago I got into some legal troubles for being way too specific on how the system worked, and I'm not going to risk that again, but I think I can be vague enough to answer your questions and still keep the lawyers away.

In your example, if a player ends up with a 2 innings per game match for the night - whether he won 1 game in 2 total innings, 3 games in six total innings, or whatever, that's still shooting pretty good. It really doesn't matter how many games his opponent won, or who won the actual match. Our hypothetical player won, on average, every second or third trip to the table. If his opponent just happened to win, on average, every first trip to the table that takes nothing away from the fact that the first guy still shot pretty good.

Now this can be a bad thing at times. Several years ago I played against a 2, so it was a 7-2 race. I broke and ran the first 6 games, then made an early 8 in game 7. In game 8 my opponent didn't make anything on the break, and I ran out. While my 7-in-1-inning score did not affect my rating snce I was already a 7, that 1-in-1-inning score haunted that poor 2 for her next 19 matches. In fact she went up to a three because of that match. Some L.O.s will correct fluke scores like this to help eliminate this type of problem, but it's not required, and the L.O. in Omaha at the time did not do it.

Win/Loss is not a big factor in APA - it's mainly used to help prevent sandbagging, and I'm not going to get into how it's used.

The best, but not necessarily the easiest thing to do is just play and not worry about the handicap system. One thing that happens as a result of people like our friend Rick is that legitimate and honest players begin to fear they may be mistakenly over-rated, and that can naturally start people questioning the system and its reputed fairness.

Hope this helps.

LePheaux wrote:
> So your saying your a 6.

If I hadn't been frozen into being a 7 for the past 10 years, then yes, I'd say I'd probably have been rated a 6 when we met since I was at the tail end of a two-year funk.

> one good night or one bad night and blah, your rating is fixed
> for fucking ever doesen't go up or down,

Unless you've been frozen at a skill level your skill level can go down. There are several ways to get frozen. Unless you're a 7 your skill level can always go up as you either improve or stop sandbagging.

> what kinda cliquish shit is that all about, it god damn sure
> isn't the way an average is supposed to be obtaind.

It is the League Operator's right and responsibility to assign appropriate skill levels to skilled players, either as they enter the league, or as it becomes apparent that their current level is too low. Some L.O.s are more diligent at this than others.

> Nothing special there dave, I was called a sandbagger before the
> fact. so I didn't want to make Gene, and Kim and all your good
> buddies out to be liers.

Yes, I'm friends with Gene the L.O. You'll never meet a more honest and straightforward man. I don't know Kim nearly as well, but she's always struck me as honest as well. Both of them play at a strong 6 level and are more than capable of telling when somebody is dumping innings on purpose. Unless you showed them some speed I didn't see I can't imagine either of them thinking that YOU were a 7 sandbagging down to a 6. Your team-mates I don't know so I can't speak about them.

> Hell ya, I took three people who didn't have a snowballs chance
> in Miami. of ever going to the end, and showed them how winning
> feels.,

You showed them how cheating to win feels. You showed them how their team captain didn't think they head a legitimate chance to do anything.

> now now dave, it's nice to see your still such a staunch
> supporter of the APA. even after your shafting and all.

Funny, I don't ever recall being shafted regarding league play. I played that league for almost 10 years, and enjoyed all but my last session. Any shafting that took place was in the business side of things.

> But there are no monies in that goofy play off. just a little
> bitty trophey.

I'm not sure what kind of playoff money Gene's giving out these days. I do know that a large amount goes to paying teams' way to Vegas.

> by the way, when the sniveling little shit that lost to brian,
> wanted to see his ID. (Like i was able to pull one of my old
> aquantances from Florida all the way to Seattle to play in a
> league,ya right) That was it, in all the years of league play
> i have never ever been asked or even heard of someone being
> asked for an ID.

It's right in the APA rule book - you need an ID. And unless the laws in WA have been relaxed quite a bit since I left you also need an ID to even be in a bar there.

> were talking about a match previously played prior to the
> playoffs.

So you had warning that you'd need this guy to produce an ID before the playoffs, and you chose to ignore that warning. Then it bit you in the ass. Want some cheese to go with that?

> call me or my team sandbaggers before it happens, then they should
> expect it to happen.

Good thing nobody accused you of being a bunch of funloving, honest people, then you wouldn't have had any excuse to cheat.

> call me an asshole , well when provoked, I can be one major
> sphincter. Personally Dave I like you, and respect your pool
> playing abilities, and your opinions.

Well some of my best friends are assholes, just honest ones. I can also be turned away from my usual easy-going personality, and bringing up sandbagging is an easy way to do it. I really doubt that your posts are a good indication of your overall personality since I'm usually pretty good at first impressions, and my first impressions of you were positive.

Frankly I just don't understand this 'win at any cost' mentality. The second I found out that 7 was the highest skill level in the APA (then Busch) league, I knew that's what I wanted to be - a 7. Some people feel they'll have more fun if they can keep their rating down - and therefore win more matches. My theory has always been that if I could only play good enough, they could rate me a 17 and I'd still win. I'd much rather be a 7 with a 90% winning percentage than a 5 with a 100 percentage - especially if I had to be dishonest to stay at a 5.

> but the way Gene runs the APA here it is not Honest. so the direct
> insults you bear unto me should be redirected towards Geno.

I defy you or anyone else to give me any example where Gene has been dishonest - in running the league, playing, or in life in general.

> I did not start the feud, I only did what they accused me of
> before it happened.

Inner-city minorities have been using this excuse for decades in lame attempts to shift the blame for their crimes to someone else.

> and alas it would not happen at all if the average system was set
> up on a win loss record instead of an inning system.

I'd be happy to compare different handicapping systems with you. I've long thought that the APA's system, based on average innings per game, was pretty clever, and potentially quite fair. The problem with systems based on win/loss records is that each division/league/area has it own average level of ability. For example you could be a BCA "9" from a weaker area but if you moved into a stronger area you might only be able to hold a "7" rating. With an innings/game system it doesn't matter how strong your area is. A "6" in a weak area has roughly the same skills as a "6" form a strong area. Since the APA maintains its handicapping throughout the playoffs all the way to the National level tournaments, a straight win/loss system just wouldn't work - Teams from the stronger areas like Florida and Illinois would eat the weaker areas' teams for lunch. So what happens is that the win/loss based leagues like the BCA have to toss out their handicapping at the national level tournaments - which is only great if you're a strong team.

Well, I've gone off on another rant. I'd still like to grab some beers next time I'm up that way. Let's just agree not to throw them in each other's faces.

LePheaux wrote:
> The first season I played APA. My rating had been decided
> before ever pocketing a ball, Huh Dave.

Your skill level was established before you joined the league - because you and I spent three hours playing 1, 2, and 3 inning games in front of the League Operator at the Sports Pub.

(Blah)
> I decided to show the locals what sandbagging really was, so
> I taught the neighbors and coached my pal, on how to play
> safes, and up there skill level some.

Playing safeties is not sandbagging...

(Blah)
> it's as simple as playing a safety, and just not calling it.

...not calling them is not sandbagging. Not MARKING them is sandbagging, but it only works if neither scoresheet has the safeties marked.

I don't want to go off on a rant here, but it really takes a special type of asshole to sandbag. I mean, you not only need to be willing to cheat to beat players of your own caliber and above, you also have to be willing to cheat the beginners, social players, and serious in the league. So you sandbagged your way into the playoffs. Are you actually proud of that? Does it make you feel good to know that there are honest players who didn't make the playoffs because of your sandbagging? Some people join handicapped leagues because they're told they'll have a realistic chance of winning. Others see it as a great opportunity to help introduce beginning players to the game in a wholesome and fun way. And still others see it as an opportunity to cheat, lie, and swindle their way into prize monies and recognition they're too lazy or stupid to try to earn honestly.

Of course that's just my opinion - I could be wrong, but I don't think so. All handicap systems have their flaws, and all handicapped leagues have their sandbaggers. At least with the APA system sandbagging can be prevented. Just have the guts to mark any "non-performance" shots as YOU see them, and if the other team/players objects, tell them (nicely) to kiss your ass and mind their own scoresheet.

Keith D wrote:
> Focus on the table as you walk around it, I have knocked over
> a waitress and barely mumbled an apology (I apologized later
> and gave her a large tip) because I would not take my eyes
> off the table.

I've found that when I'm shooting my best I focus on the cue-ball. My eyes hardly ever leave the cue-ball from the time I shoot a shot until I get ready for the next shot. Often I find myself confirming that the object ball went in simply by the sound of it dropping, so great is the hypnotic power of the cue-ball as it moves into position for the next shot. I play and move around the table fairly quickly, and many times I find myself down in position ready to stroke - only to have to wait for the cueball to arrive at its intended location.

Trying to force this level of concentration by intentionally focusing on the cue-ball sometimes works, but usually not. I think for me the focusing is a symptom of my concentration level - not a cause. So it's not quite a chicken/egg thing for me, more like a chicken/chicken sandwich thing.

(This post is much too long - especially for the first serious thread I've tried to start in years. My apologies in advance)

I'm not sure where to start here - it's probably going to sound nutty no matter where I start.

I recently bought a house with an 8' Steepleton table in the basement. I didn't pay too much attention to the table until I had it leveled, shimmed, and covered with Simonis 860. Now it plays as well as can be expected.

I have a Schon cue that I paid $1000 for ten years ago, and a Joss that I just bought for $300 in December - mainly just to have something to shoot with while I was in Seattle on a business trip. My Schon weighs 20 oz. I'm used to this cue. The Joss weighs 18.2 oz, and it feels pretty strange in my hand - like there's nothing there.

I have a set of Brunswick Centennials, and also a set of generic balls that came with the table. Both sets of balls are in quite good condition, with similar levels of cleanliness and polish.

When I first started playing seriously on the table I didn't do very well at all. My speed-control was nowhere to be seen, and even the simplest shots seemed to be no better than a 50/50 proposition. This was with the Schon shooting at the generic balls. After a few days of playing like a chump, I started looking for excuses. I decided to change the tip on my Schon - even though the LePro on it was only about two months old and was holding up fine. While the glue was drying I decided to knock some balls around with the Joss. I hadn't played with it much in Seattle and was trying to decide whether I wanted to sell it or keep it. Playing with the Joss, and the generic balls, I fell straight into dead stroke and stayed there for two hours. It was like the damn stick had shape turned into it on the lathe, and shotmaking added in with the finish. I literally hadn't shot this well in over 10 years.

I figured I had finally gotten used to the new table. I invited my cousin - a pool newbie who, despite conflicting "advice" from several people who think Tom Cruise is a Pool God, has managed to focus on my instuction enough over the past several months to actually run a rack of 8-Ball now and then - over to shoot some games. Since this was to be the first official pool session in the new house, with the newly-recovered table, I broke out the Centennials for the special occasion. By this time my Schon was ready for use, and this time it didn't disappoint. I did not have the cue-ball on a string as I'd had earlier in the day but I shot what I'd consider my normal game. After the night's session was over I boxed the Centennials back up and put the generics back on the table.

The next day I went downstairs, hoping to recreate the previous day's exhilaration. Instead I was right back to where I'd been 24 hours earlier. I could hardly make a ball, and when I did manage to rattle one in my cue-ball would end up in a different zip code than the one I'd intended. This, again, was using the Schon with the generic balls. Unwilling to become the Roy Hobbs of the pool world I set out to determine the cause(s) for my inconsistency.

Now I'm not a scientist, and while I do know a little about scientific methods, I'm not claiming to have used any of them here. I just tried some stuff and I'll report the results along with one possible interpretation. In two consecutive outings with my Schon and the generic balls I'd managed to stink up the place. I'd shot very well with the Joss at the generic balls, and I'd also shot well with the Schon at the Centennials. I was starting to sense a pattern, but I ran thru each scenario to make sure.

I like to practice a version of Bowlliards (sp?). I get a free break shot at a rack of ten balls, and I get ball in hand after the break. Scratches on the break are not penalized. I get two innings to run the ten balls, and it's scored like bowling. Most people on this group have probably heard of it. I like to use it for practice, and for me I think it gives a pretty good indication of my current overall offensive skill level. I decided to use my favorite practice game to test myself with the two different cues and with the two different sets of balls. I played five "games" with each pairing. After each "game" I would switch to a different pairing so as not to get stuck in a rut with a certain pairing. Here are the results:

Scenario 1 (Schon and generic balls) 85,174,123,130,151 = avg. 132
Scenario 2 (Schon and Centennials) 204,244,190,237,213 = avg. 217
Scenario 3 (Joss and generics) 272,266,201,199,230 = avg. 233
Scenario 4 (Joss and Centennials) 112,127,128,160,153 = avg. 136

I should probably throw out the 85 score since that was the first set I played, and I should probably also throw out the 272 since my cat jumped onto the table and broke up a small cluster for me in frame 6. But even after throwing out the high and low scores for each set there's still a pretty huge difference between the four scenarios. So what was the deal? Was my $1000 Schon to good for the generic balls? Were the expensive Centennials somehow intimidating the $300 Joss? I know the caste system is alive and well in many parts of the world but I didn't expect it to show up on my pool table. I looked for a better explanation.

I did some squirt-comparision tests with the Joss and the Schon. The test I use is to freeze an object ball to the middle of the foot rail, and place the cueball on the head spot. I then track where I need to aim to "cut" the object ball into the far corners. I used the generic balls for these tests. The Joss requires a point-of-aim that is about 1/3 of the way into the object ball. The Schon does not seem to need quite as much compensation but it is very close to being the same.

As I mentioned before, the two sets of balls are of the same playability. I did some throw tests shooting frozen combination down the length of the table and both sets throw about 4.25" over that length. The size and shape of all of the object balls and the cue-balls are as identical as I an tell by eye. Their difference is in weight. I don't have a scale, but I can tell by a blind pickup test that the Centennials are all heavier than the generics. I did this test enough times to convince myself that this is true - the generics are lighter than the Centennials.

The cues I do know the weight for - I had the Schon weighed years ago after I put a heavier weight bolt in it, and the MBE people weighed the Joss when I shipped it from Seattle.

Looking at the results from my practice sets again, this time taking into account the relative weights of the objects involved, and it turns out that:

1. I shoot the heavier balls better with the heavier stick, and I shoot the lighter balls better with the lighter stick.
2. I suck if I shoot the light balls with the heavy stick, and I also suck shooting the heavy balls with the light stick. Those are the observations I have made. Now is where I have to come up with a possible explanation for them.

The main thing that remained consistent between all of the stick/ball pairings if, of course, the shooter. Things like my stance, follow-through, chalking habits, and the like did not change noticeably just because I was holding a different cue. Likewise my arm speed remained constant, and that, I think, is where a clue to the solution to my conundrum lies.

Again, I'm not a scientist, and it's likely that the scientists who frequent this group will pick my logic to shreds, but here's what I think is happening.

Assume that these generic balls that came with my table are the lightest balls I've ever shot. This may be the case but I haven't been carrying a scale around for the last seventeen years so I don't know. Now, since the generics are the lightest it (duh) follows that every other set of balls are heavier. So every other set of balls I've ever shot with has been (weight-wise) more like my Centennials than my generics. Since I've had my Schon for ten years that means that I've been shooting at heavy balls with my Schon for ten years. Everything about my stroke is tuned to shooting balls with approximately this same weight. My body naturally knows how hard to shoot to get a certain amount of draw, follow, or whatever. My body is able to automatically allow for squirt or swerve with these balls and this cue.

Now take the same shooter (me), and the same cue (Schon), and stick in some lighter balls. Since the shooter is using the same built-in be-the-ball shooting style his arm speed is the same as always. But since the same stick is being driven with the same speed into a LIGHTER cue-ball that cue-ball is being driven forward HARDER than it should be. All kinds of things result. The main thing to go wrong is position play. Since every shot is really being shot harder than it feels, draw and follow seems to mysteriously increase, and the shooter's heretofore automagic squirt compensation doesn't work right either. Hand the shooter (me again) a lighter cue (Joss) than the cue (Schon) than he is used to, and have him shoot at these same balls.

Now the shooter can use his tried-and-true shooting style with much better results. The cue-ball speed is back down to where it should be. Proper position play is restored, and even squirt compensation feels more normal.

Continuing to torment our shooter (guess who), we now force him to shoot at the heavier balls (Centennials) with the lighter cue (Joss). With the same stance, stroke, arm speed, follow-through, blah, blah, the shooter still feels like everything is fine mechanically. But now the lighter cue is transferring LESS energy to the cue-ball. All shots are actually SOFTER than they feel. This appears as apparent understroking of shots, and results in position play at least as bad as the overstroking from two paragraphs up.

At last we allow our shooter some dignity, and let him shoot the heavier (Centennial) balls with the heavier (Schon) cue. His game returns to it's former glory, since this is after all the weight pairing he's been shooting with since 1983.

Well to anyone who's made it this far into this post (without cheating and just skipping to the end) I thank you. I think I can sum all of above into a couple of questions:

1. Can a different stick/ball weight ratio than one the shooter is used to seriously mess up a person's game, especially if they shoot, like me, with the Obi Wan Mosconi play-by-feel style.
2. Remember those el-cheapo cues with the removeable washers for quick weight changes that the chumps were all carrying 10 years ago? Does anyone know if Tim Scruggs makes a cue with this feature? ;)

This post is meant to be serious, but since I am the same person that used to carry different chalk brands around for different type of shots I guess I'll understand if nobody takes it seriously.

I don't know if they still use the same slogans, but about 10 years ago I saw an ad for Masters and Triangle chalks. Under the Masters the slogan was "Stressing Smoothness", and the slogan under Triangle was "Stressing Firmness". I spent a few weeks carrying around both types of chalk, using the Masters for normal shots and the Triangle when I needed to get extra spin.

Eventually it just got to be too much trouble to be constantly switching chalks. There was a real difference though - especially when drawing a mudball on old felt.

Another thing about this is that it really drove my roommate crazy. He couldn't figure out how I kept beating him when I was "obviously" warped.

There was a short story in either BD or P&B about that same time about a guy who's given different colored chalks for different shots, and ends up being the world's best player because of it. I'd love to see a reprint of that story someday.

greg miller wrote...
>
> Do you think table lights can be too bright?

It's too bright if you finish a game, then have to wait for you eyes to adjust before you can find your break cue against the wall.

Didn't notice this thread when it first came out. Not much has changed with me since then though so nobody missed anything.

I'm Dave Siltz, 34, single, living in New Albany IN, of which Louisville KY is a suburb. I'm a computer consultant and besides pool my main hobby is home theater. I also have 3 cats. Been playing since about 1983 when I started a decade of military (Air Force) service. I lived in Bellevue, NE for six years until 1992 and that's where I guess I got pretty good at pool. I noticed a couple of posts from the Omaha area and I'm wondering if we have any mutual acquaintances. Anyone who knows who "Awesome Larry" is should also know who I am. Ask Mike the bartender at Fort Crook (if he still works there).

Also lived in Kent WA for six years and I'm responsible for starting the APA up there and running it (for my absent LO) it until G.B. bought it in '94. I've also lived and played in Anchorage AK and New Orleans LA and met quite a few good people (and good shooters) in both cities.

Let's see, as this is written I shoot with an old Schon (SP-8?) that I've had for about 10 years, and I break with a 25oz Schmelke I call "The club". A couple of weeks ago I went on a little buying spree that culminated in my ordering 2 new Schons (STL-4 for breaking, STL-13 for shooting) that I'm hoping to get by Thanksgiving.

Very long time readers may recall that I got in a bit of trouble about 5 years ago for posting the complete APA handicap system to R.S.B. The system has changed a lot since then so I guess the heat's off.

I've played in APA, VEA, Midwest, and BCA 8-Ball leagues. I refuse to play in the APA's so-called "9-ball" league since IMHO it's not 9-ball when you start counting balls made. I was a fairly solid "9" in the BCA and VNEA leagues, and scraped out a "10" for the one season I played the Midwest league. I've had a NLA (National Lowest Attainable) of "7" in the APA for about 10 years, mainly due to a 3 month stretch where I dropped my average to .38 or something ridiculous like that. I haven't played as well since. I got kind of burnt out on pool in '95 (girl troubles) and haven't played league or regular tournaments since, though I've been considering getting back into it. Played my first tournament in 4 years about a month ago (a small weekly deal at Bailey's in Clarkville IN) and won it, so my game hasn't chumped up too much.

A little off topic, but this thread reminded me of something quite strange I saw once. Anyone who was at the APA Singles Regionals in Omaha in 1988 might remember this. During the Womens' Finals a local player (I'll call her Carol), and someone from out of town (Something "Skank" I think) were both down to a single ball in the hill-hill game. Skank was lining up to shoot the wrong ball, and everyone in the room held their breath. Just before the shot one of Skank's friends called out "Skanky, you're solids!" or something to that effect. Skank looked up, switched her shot, and made her last ball.

Before Skank could pocket the eight and win the match, Carol called a foul, since any type of coaching is forbidden in APA singles play. Skank claimed that she hadn't been coached, that she noticed the mistake on her own, and that she should not be punished just because some drunk couldn't keep his mouth shut.

The League Operator couldn't make a ruling (he was sort of clueless) so there was a rather long shouting match, followed by a call to APA headquarters in St. Louis. The final ruling was that since it was a friend of Skank's that had done the "coaching" a rules violation had occurred and Carol should get ball-in-hand.

So finally after about a 30 minute delay that game was allowed to continue. Carol picked up the cueball, sat it in front of the eight, and shot the eight in. She had completely forgotten (a)that she was shooting stripes, and (b)that she still had one ball left. After all of the uproar Carol had lost the game and the match after all.

If there is a moral to this story, I suppose it would be that you need to keep your own ducks in a row, not count on someone else to line them up for you.