PDA

View Full Version : Different Brains



bluewolf
05-02-2003, 07:51 AM
Some have used the term right brain or left brain, for lack of better words, as it is obvious that we use our whole brain. There is an old book called "Drawing on the right side of the brain". The contention was that the analytical part of the brain uses labels such as this is a nose, and producing a poor result because they are using words rather than seeing what is actually their spatially.

It was an interesting experiment. I come from a family of artists where I could not draw well. In the book, you turn the picture upside down. Now a nose does not look like a nose, etc, and the person draws just based on seeing the angles etc. Well I was shocked. My final result was almost exactly like the original.

So there must be something to this learning style thing, no matter how one labels it. In math, for example, one learner wants to know the steps first and then the concepts. Another learner insists that they cannot learn the math unless they know the concepts first, then they can learn the steps.

In my experience, one type of learner is very focused and very good with details but often do not see all of other aspects. The other one is more distractible, not as good with detail, but can see more aspects of the situation.

It is like:
One cannot see the forest for the trees
One cannot see the trees for the forest

There is this conundrum, and I wonder if anyone/scientists or other smart people have figured this out. The artist obviously sees what is there spatially, yet most of them have difficulty with activities requing learning by sequences. OTOH, the sequential folks have better senses of direction, which is certainly a spatial skill.They are also better at math because math is taught 95% of the time, sequentially, ie do this step then this. And these guys are so fast, they learn the steps so fast, math is a cinch for many of them

Somehow, I think that this relates not only to how a person thinks, solves problems, and interacts in their relationships, but also in pool.

More women than men learn conceptually. More men than women learn steps more easily and can focus well. I think that this is a factor in less women playing pool. I do not think it is a perception of pool in a certain way or exposure to the sport, ONLY.

Learning pool, if you think about it is very detailed and many steps are learned. Some people who learn this way, are so fast at it, that they feel that they are doing it by feel, when actually they are flying through the steps fster than a locomotive.

Since I was not a steps learner (but have always tried to develop my weaker areas to be well rounded)but this is obviously required to play pool, I told ww that I would have to learn (what we called the left brained stuff) first and it would be hard and I would learn pool slowly at first. Once I learned that stuff, then I would be able to do it more naturally.

WW is also interested in why certain persons grasp the concepts of safety more easily than others. He played on a team where all of the others were engineers, obviously brighter than average, yet had a hard time teaching this to them. This was three sessions ago.

We played this team last night and they still do not play safe. It is like their brains only see the next shot rather than all of the possibilities for the rack. Many of them are good shooters and can play shape but just have not been able to grasp 'safety play'.

Both of us have tossed this around quite a bit in terms of why certain people learn safe easily and for others it is a struggle.

Laura

Kato
05-02-2003, 09:28 AM
Playing safe depends on the quality of shooter and his/her ability to weigh the risk/reward for an offensive and defensive shot. Where you see defense I see offense. Where you see a cluster I see a run out. Is that because I can't play safe? Absolutely not, I can and have played absolute monster safe's for no apparent reason but if I see the move and I can keep you in the chair then you have no shot. In other words, if my opponent don't shoot they can't win. Playing a safe just gives your opponent another opportunity at the table. My left brain doesn't tell me that, nor does my right. My common sense tells me that.

For instance, you played 15 safes in 3 games to win your last match. That means that you gave me 15 extra shots at the table. I may not play 15 safes in a season of 8 ball. There are also nights where I want to work at it and will. In a tournament I will play safe more often than league.

Now then, knowing that I will probably not play 15 safes in an entire 18 week session but in spite of that win approximately 60% of my games does this mean I don't grasp the concept of safe?

Kato~~~feeling frisky today

SpiderMan
05-02-2003, 09:51 AM
That is a very good, insightful monologue. It could even form the basis of a good (publishable) article on the nuances of learning. Maybe you should keep a diary of all your thoughts as you go through the process of improving your pool game. Even the SL obsessions, LOL. You'll have to decide later what to include in your book.

SpiderMan

bluewolf
05-02-2003, 10:18 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Kato:</font><hr> Playing safe depends on the quality of shooter and his/her ability to weigh the risk/reward for an offensive and defensive shot. In a tournament I will play safe more often than league.

Now then, knowing that I will probably not play 15 safes in an entire 18 week session but in spite of that win approximately 60% of my games does this mean I don't grasp the concept of safe?

Kato~~~feeling frisky today <hr /></blockquote>

That is because you are so much better than I am. The players I play do not run out.

Laura---&gt;happy kato wins 60% of his matches /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Fred Agnir
05-02-2003, 12:10 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bluewolf:</font><hr> WW is also interested in why certain persons grasp the concepts of safety more easily than others. He played on a team where all of the others were engineers, obviously brighter than average, yet had a hard time teaching this to them. This was three sessions ago.<hr /></blockquote>Thinking like this and convincing yourself of incorrect conclusions helps nothing. "Getting safeties" has a lot do with skill level and your approach to the game. I've only known one person who's safety game was better than their runout game. One. And I like many here, have met literally 1000's upon 1000's of players. Good safety play goes hand in hand with good shooting and position play. Just because you play a safe, doesn't mean it's a good one or a good decision. Don't kid yourself on this. It'll stall your improvement.

[ QUOTE ]
We played this team last night and they still do not play safe. Many of them are good shooters and can play shape but just have not been able to grasp 'safety play'.<hr /></blockquote> Bar hacks.


[ QUOTE ]
Both of us have tossed this around quite a bit in terms of why certain people learn safe easily and for others it is a struggle.<hr /></blockquote>Spend time on something more productive. Like learning to run out. The top players run out. They don't play many safeties. Does that mean they "don't grasp safeties"? Of course not. They (the top players) are most likely also the top safety players. That's probably true for every amateur league in the universe. Yours would be no different.

Fred

heater451
05-02-2003, 12:15 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bluewolf:</font><hr>. . .There is an old book called "Drawing on the right side of the brain". The contention was that the analytical part of the brain uses labels such as this is a nose, and producing a poor result because they are using words rather than seeing what is actually their spatially. . . .<hr /></blockquote>I remember it as being "symbols",as opposed to "labels" or "words"--not trying to nitpick, but if some haven't been exposed to the book, they won't translate what you mean.

IIRC, the example given is a discussion of how, as children, we learn to use symbols to represent objects--The comparison is of a 'symbol' of eyeglasses, where a child (or 'untrained' adult) will use circles and sticks (lines) to represent the glasses, whereas the 'trained' artist (any age) will use lines, shapes and appropriate negative space, to draw a realistic representation of eyeglasses.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bluewolf:</font><hr> So there must be something to this learning style thing, no matter how one labels it. In math, for example, one learner wants to know the steps first and then the concepts. Another learner insists that they cannot learn the math unless they know the concepts first, then they can learn the steps.<hr /></blockquote>I think the "concepts" for math made their debut with the "new math", where you take two apples, and hold up another two, in order to show the new group of four, and then you move on to explain how this is represented in mathematical symbols (2+2=4). Otherwise, I think math is/was taught by memorization (rote and repetition)--students are forced to memorize tables and patterns (1+1=2, 1+2=3, 1+3=4. . .2+1=3, 2+2+4. . . .). Understanding the concepts ("enlightenment" or "revelation") comes later.

. . .Sorry, now I'm needlessly messing w/ your example--I get where you're going, though. . . .
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bluewolf:</font><hr>In my experience, one type of learner is very focused and very good with details but often do not see all of other aspects. The other one is more distractible, not as good with detail, but can see more aspects of the situation.

It is like:
One cannot see the forest for the trees
One cannot see the trees for the forest

There is this conundrum, and I wonder if anyone/scientists or other smart people have figured this out. The artist obviously sees what is there spatially, yet most of them have difficulty with activities requing learning by sequences. OTOH, the sequential folks have better senses of direction, which is certainly a spatial skill.They are also better at math because math is taught 95% of the time, sequentially, ie do this step then this. And these guys are so fast, they learn the steps so fast, math is a cinch for many of them

Somehow, I think that this relates not only to how a person thinks, solves problems, and interacts in their relationships, but also in pool.<hr /></blockquote>It's easy to agree here, although I would think that there may also be an issue with whom does the teaching. If you have a "sequential" teacher, and a "conceptual" student, there's going to be some communication breakdowns. Eventually, I would imagine that a student will learn enough of the 'other' system, in order to translate it to his/her system--that, and/or they will discover a way in which their system works for them, an apply their system to future solutions or problems.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bluewolf:</font><hr> More women than men learn conceptually. More men than women learn steps more easily and can focus well. I think that this is a factor in less women playing pool. I do not think it is a perception of pool in a certain way or exposure to the sport, ONLY.<hr /></blockquote>I don't know if we can generalize the sexes, but lackin any hard numbers, I think the thinking system basically goes by individuals, regardless of sex. However, I will bring up something I have in the past, and that is the physical brain difference, in regard to the corpus callosum. The bundle of nerves that connect the brain hemispheres tends to be larger in women, and supposedly, leads to greater communication between the two. This could support your "focus" issue when it comes to taking shots, but I would disagree that it keeps women from being attracted to pool--I would be more likely to blame a disdain for not being able to play well immediately, or a lack of desire to be competitive (not that women aren't competitive--PLEASE DON'T ATTACK ME ON THAT, I doubt any women who read this board are non-competitive /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif ) Back to the corpus callosum, there might also be a problem with (certain) women being able to resolve information-categorization and brain-communication internally, as opposed to dealing with any cross-system communication, between teacher and student--this of course is assuming a male teacher (further assuming that most women learn from a male acquaintance).

**This makes me wonder, whether women respond better to female pool teachers than male pool teachers--assuming the females are members of the same thought system, and the males aren't, by correlation.**

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bluewolf:</font><hr>Learning pool, if you think about it is very detailed and many steps are learned. Some people who learn this way, are so fast at it, that they feel that they are doing it by feel, when actually they are flying through the steps fster than a locomotive.

Since I was not a steps learner (but have always tried to develop my weaker areas to be well rounded)but this is obviously required to play pool, I told ww that I would have to learn (what we called the left brained stuff) first and it would be hard and I would learn pool slowly at first. Once I learned that stuff, then I would be able to do it more naturally..<hr /></blockquote>Hard to agree or disagree, as you would have to analyze their performance while they were learning, since anyone with long-term experience would probably have resolved either system to "feel", by a certain point.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bluewolf:</font><hr>WW is also interested in why certain persons grasp the concepts of safety more easily than others. He played on a team where all of the others were engineers, obviously brighter than average, yet had a hard time teaching this to them. . .We played this team last night and they still do not play safe. It is like their brains only see the next shot rather than all of the possibilities for the rack. Many of them are good shooters and can play shape but just have not been able to grasp 'safety play'.

Both of us have tossed this around quite a bit in terms of why certain people learn safe easily and for others it is a struggle.

Laura<hr /></blockquote>I have two guesses at this:

1)Probably oversimplification, but we (all players) are tend toward aggressive shooting. This could just be ego, saying "I can do this", or it's just that we primarily learn how to make shots, over how to hide.

2) When a player locks into a shot that appears makeable--no matter how low percentage--they stop thinking of options, and therefore ignore any thoughts of safeties. This may run deeper than ego.

As creatures of habit, we humans learn to do what works, and rely on that primarily, only moving onto other options, when repetitive failure forces us to do so. A classic example involves a drink vending machine:

When a person selects a Coca-Cola, and none is vended, they will most often do the following steps in order (assuming failure at each step, 'til the last):
Push the same button repeatedly.
Push the same button harder.
Push another "Coke" button, if available.
Push another selection.
The point is, we will try to make a shot that 'should' work--and would try several times, if the game were set up that way, before eventually attempting other options.


===================

bluewolf
05-02-2003, 12:30 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> I've only known one person who's safety game was better than their runout game. One. And I like many here, have met literally 1000's upon 1000's of players. Good safety play goes hand in hand with good shooting and position play. Just because you play a safe, doesn't mean it's a good one or a good decision. Don't kid yourself on this. It'll stall your improvement.


The top players run out. They don't play many safeties. Does that mean they "don't grasp safeties"? Of course not. They (the top players) are most likely also the top safety players. That's probably true for every amateur league in the universe. Yours would be no different.

Fred


<hr /></blockquote>

Our 7s and some of our 6s seem good at safes. He was working with 4s and 5s. There were also two 3s at the next session. They were able to learn it pretty good.

So, what I think is that a player eventually'gets'it when they are very good. At the medium level like 4-5, many of them dont get it. Too bad ww is not here to answer you more 'expertly'

There is a 5, only one, in our ph who is, not counting the sevens, probably the best safety player in the league. And yes, his safety game is better than his runout game. So add one more to your small list of one.

Laura

eg8r
05-02-2003, 12:31 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Spend time on something more productive. Like learning to run out. <hr /></blockquote> This I believe the main point. Why in the world is a beginner more worried about playing a safety (or equally, judging their level of safety play) than learning how to run out. I have read it here before, no one wins a game on the actual safety shot. Sure you have the opportunity to win the game in the end as a result of the ball in hand, but you still need to run out. Too much emphasis is on the safety and not running out.

eg8r

heater451
05-02-2003, 12:36 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bluewolf:</font><hr>. . .There is a 5, only one, in our ph who is, not counting the sevens, probably the best safety player in the league. And yes, his safety game is better than his runout game. So add one more to your small list of one.

Laura <hr /></blockquote>Laura, the question is, how many games does he win, by playing safeties alone?

I know that it's possible to inch your way to a win with safeties, but if you're six balls down, you can't safety forever.


======================

bluewolf
05-02-2003, 12:37 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> Good safety play goes hand in hand with good shooting and position play. Just because you play a safe, doesn't mean it's a good one or a good decision. Don't kid yourself on this. It'll stall your improvement.


<hr /></blockquote>

BTW, when I mean safe I mean this. I look at the table, all of there balls and all of my balls. Then I calculate whether by playing safe, it will keep them from 'seeing' any of their balls or the ones they can see are shots above their skill level AND it leaves me good on my next shot or shots.

So while you are at it, you might as well add one more to your list. While my shot making is improving, my safety game is STILL better.

Now if you do not think that I can play good safe, then volunteer for the next rocket to the moon. /ccboard/images/graemlins/mad.gif

Laura

bluewolf
05-02-2003, 12:49 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote heater451:</font><hr> <hr /></blockquote>Laura, the question is, how many games does he win, by playing safeties alone?

I know that it's possible to inch your way to a win with safeties, but if you're six balls down, you can't safety forever.


====================== <hr /></blockquote>

He wins a majority of games against other 5s.

Laura

bluewolf
05-02-2003, 12:57 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> <hr /></blockquote> This I believe the main point. Why in the world is a beginner more worried about playing a safety (or equally, judging their level of safety play) than learning how to run out. I have read it here before, no one wins a game on the actual safety shot. <hr /></blockquote>

Gosh, this is so simple.

I do not practice safety play because I do not need to. I practice potting balls. If I have a shot and it is a good shot, I take it. If I do not have a shot or it is a very low percentage shot, I play safe.

In this last game there were horrendous clusters and no 7s around to break them up hardy har, and often no shots until the end of the game. My opponent also played safes, as this was all there was. Bad rack and 2 players not skilled enough to break it up.

Just that simple.

Laura

Fred Agnir
05-02-2003, 01:02 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bluewolf:</font><hr> Now if you do not think that I can play good safe, then volunteer for the next rocket to the moon. /ccboard/images/graemlins/mad.gif<hr /></blockquote>Regardless of how mad you get and how pissed off you might get at me, my words, the words of an outsider who along with the rest of this group who can offer a wealth of knowledge, can only help.

Don't kid yourself. If you're an SL-2, then how can you say you execute a higher-level safety? That's like slapping safety players in the face. You have to control the object ball and the cueball. At lower levels, you can get away with controlling just one, mostly the cueball. That control shows up in shotmaking as well. They go hand in hand. That's reality. The definition of a safety isn't in it of itself, but what the player does afterwards. Does he get ball in hand? What does he do with ball in hand? Does the opponent kick but not make a hit? Does he make a hit but doesn't make a ball and sell out? What is the definition of your "good safety"? The fact that some lower level player fails to do anything with your safety, crumples to the floor, and you get another inning to play another safety?

I've heard it all before from lower level players who believe that they play safeties better than X level. It never pans out to be the truth, and that player will always need a reality check.

Keep playing safeties. It'll only make them stronger. In several years when you're a better player, you'll remember this post and laugh at the idea that you thought you were a good safety player.

Fred

bluewolf
05-02-2003, 01:07 PM
Well I guess you would just have to see it in person. See you at the open, my cantankerous, intellectual, usually nice friend. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Laura

SpiderMan
05-02-2003, 01:23 PM
Fred,

Every time you shoot, you choose between attempting to run out or not. Lower-skilled players will not succeed at runouts from many situations, they'll just clear a path for their opponents. Highly-skilled players run out because they can, so it makes sense to choose runout more often.

Lower-skilled players of course need to work on playing and runout skills, but unless they enjoy losing at the same time they should not lean toward trying to play runout in competition. It's unfortunate, but the players that should be choosing defense are often the ones least likely to do so.

As a 7, my scariest matchup is a strong 4 who knows how to play safe, because our race is 5 to 2 and one win puts him on the hill. A strong 4 is good enough to run out with ball-in-hand after a successful safe or series of safes.

SpiderMan

Fred Agnir
05-02-2003, 01:43 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr>
Lower-skilled players of course need to work on playing and runout skills, but unless they enjoy losing at the same time they should not lean toward trying to play runout in competition. <hr /></blockquote>Which brings up another point of discussion that really belongs in the main board. How do they know what to "work on" in practice, if they don't try it in competition? If they don't try the difficult things in competition, at what point do they know it's no longer difficult in competition?

I understand the need to weigh out percentages in actual competition, but at some point, if you don't push your boundaries during heart thumping pressure, then you'll never know when you've expanded the boundary or mastered that particular situation. I think every one of us has improved by shooting beyond their comfortable range at some point. Even missing, a lesson is learned.

Should a "good safety player" who can't run out simply stall their competition game improvement by choosing the passive safety every time? I don't think you'd advise that.

Here's my common 8-ball skill progression. It fits nearly 100% of the players out there:

The progression in 8-ball goes something like this:

Shoot at anything regardless of runout possibilities.
Shoot at anything, except for balls hanging in the pockets.
Play safeties when you can't run out.
Play safeties, bunting balls around, even when you can run out.
Realize that leaving the hanging balls is the worst thing for your game.
Realize that other people are running out on you while you're bunting around.
Go for the runout nearly every time.



Fred

eg8r
05-02-2003, 01:54 PM
BW, I did not make that post based on how you played in one single game, or from just one single post. I was just making note, that your 2 main subjects are playing safe, and skill level. You have now introduced off-handed shooting.

This is just interesting to me, no more than that, and nothing to belittle you. There are plenty of people that have their own approach to learning the game. I see that you call yourself a better safety player than a shooter, that is fine, it just will not win you games.

If you are a good safety player then you must be good at playing position. Well if playing safe is your strongest ability, then that means you are not pocketing the balls. You obviously must be doing fine on getting position since you use position to play a safe. Now it is time to polish of the potting of balls.

eg8r

WaltVA
05-02-2003, 01:55 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr>Good safety play goes hand in hand with good shooting and position play. Just because you play a safe, doesn't mean it's a good one or a good decision. Don't kid yourself on this. It'll stall your improvement...


Laura - I think Fred's point was that basing your game on a purely defensive strategy may finally get you a win against relatively unskilled opponents. But if you're going to progress to playing someone who can kick out of safeties effectively and run out with 5-6 balls on a relatively clear table, you can't rely on "make a ball and hide" forever.

Defense is important in a well balanced game; if you can play a safe, get BIH and use it to get out on your last 3 balls, you've got a win. If you play a succession of safes but never get your balls in the pocket, you're waiting (and hoping) for your opponent to scratch on the 8.

Practicing simple outs with 2 balls, then adding a ball at a time is still one of the best ways to improve your offensive game. Playing simple position on 3 balls on half the table is more helpful than practicing long cuts by the hour, IMO.

Defense is important, but a good offense will beat a static defense every time. Ask the French about the Maginot Line.

Walt in VA

Kato
05-02-2003, 02:00 PM
Here's where I see this. If I'm playing a lower skill level player I'd like to assume my skill level is better than yours at pretty much everything. My break is better, my shotmaking better, my defensive game better. Say I'm playing Bluewolf. I break, make 4 balls, and play safe. Odds are since I'm in control of the rack I'll win the game. The only way a lower SL will ever get to impose their will (in this case safety game) on me is if I sell out. Give an SL4 5 shots at the table and you win by playing safes. Give me 5 shots at the table and you lose.

I understand the desire to win games is very strong. I to wish to win games. I remember Hannibal on the A-Team say that the best defense is a good offense. That's my game, that's how I play.

I have strengths and weaknesses. I play to my strengths. I wanna run out, not play 1 pocket.

Kato

bluewolf
05-02-2003, 03:05 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Kato:</font><hr> The only way a lower SL will ever get to impose their will (in this case safety game) on me is if I sell out. Give an SL4 5 shots at the table and you win by playing safes. Give me 5 shots at the table and you lose.

<hr /></blockquote>

So true. As a two a person can beat a 4 by playing safes. Since they do not usually run out, just let them get their trash off the table, I mean 3-4 of their balls,then you have plenty of places to hide and lots of opportunities to get your balls to a 3 ball runout.I mean get them to the place on the table you want them.

I have played sl4s twice. They were better shooters although I shot pretty good that night. But against the 4s, the safes were a key to winning me the match since I only had to win 2 to their 4.

Match me to a 7, no way. No matter how good I am at safe, I do not have the potting skills to beat a good player.

Laura

heater451
05-02-2003, 03:12 PM
Ah, but you see, then he can't be shooting safe every shot.

It's an odd discussion, since defense doesn't win a game without some offense, but it can be used, necessary or not.

For example, I was talking with a local player sometime last year, and he told me about a pro-level player that came in and played in a regular Saturday tournament.

The guy I was talking to recognized him on sight, but apparently no one else in the place did, and no one balked at letting him play.

I wasn't told how he came out, finally--and he might have been there to mess around, as opposed to taking the tourney, but this is the deal:

The pro-level player would run two balls, and then hide, every time. Whether he meant to win or not, it was a perfect cover for his speed.

As it relates to this thread, it's an example of how safety play can keep you in a game, or even assist in taking a win, but it doesn't guarantee a win, nor does make a 'better' player. The player had no need to play safety every shot.

Like what Fred was getting to in one of his posts, it's fine to play safeties and try to "insure" yourself, but getting out is still the goal of the game, and the strong offense is the best tool, against most players.

Also, it seems as if the argument has become whether your safety play is good or not, but that's irrelevant. The important thing is to be able to play safe when you need to, but focus on getting out when you can.

Safety play is definitely a worthwhile skill, but worrying about perfect, lock-up safe shots not as important as running out. You talk about players who can't play safe (and I know plenty as well), but don't realize that being an extremist in the other end isn't preferred either. To paraphrase the buddha, "seek the middle ground", with the addition of, "allow for the win". . . .



=======================

SpiderMan
05-02-2003, 03:16 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> Shoot at anything regardless of runout possibilities.
Shoot at anything, except for balls hanging in the pockets.
Play safeties when you can't run out.
Play safeties, bunting balls around, even when you can run out.
Realize that leaving the hanging balls is the worst thing for your game.
Realize that other people are running out on you while you're bunting around.
Go for the runout nearly every time.
Fred <hr /></blockquote>

I'd say that your number 3, "Play safeties when you can't run out", is a higher-level skill that should be moved up to just before "go for runout nearly every time", which occurs because that player has made an experienced judgement that his chances are good. Ball-bunters often are bunting balls because they can't yet judge when to go for it.

SpiderMan

bluewolf
05-02-2003, 06:14 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> BW,
If you are a good safety player then you must be good at playing position. <hr /></blockquote>

Now I know the safe stuff I do is not that advanced but is a beginning.

I SEE position.I am not good at it. I use center most of the time so that the cb doesnt end up at the end of the table I dont want it to go to.

My coaches (WW,95%, and a sl5 last session)have taught me how to see the run of the table, which balls to do first and last, when to safe, when to block pockets, when to knock my opponents ball in the pocket or better yet knock it into their cluster, how to get their ball at one end and the cb at the other end and how to leave them hard(preferably long too) and how to hide behind clusters and giving myself a shot after they shoot or give me bih.. So now I am learning to figure out what is the right shot. I get most of my training watching matches and talking with ww and sometimes our sl5 helps too.

When I am at home here is what I practice; the lag,hitting the cb softer to see how far it goes and try to get better control, hit an object ball head on soft to see what happens and what will happen when I hit it off center.(that is a good thing I think to see what will happen). These are the kinds of things I might do for a few minutes once a week, except the lag, which is more often.

Daily, potting balls, setting up drills for my weakest shots, do simple banks, set up simple position drills.I practice my stroke to make sure it is straight, I am hitting the cb where I want to,that my stroke is set, pause, follow, freeze, addressing the ball. I do this basic stroke stuff all of the time because I heard it was the MOST important thing. That is about it.

After being sick, I am now up to one hour least of practice a day. Hopefully it will be two soon and I will be potting more balls. I do the long straight ins good because that is stroke but need a lot of more practice on the long cuts.

I heard you had to hit a million balls to be good, so figure Ill be dead by then. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

I absolutely do not practice safe per say at home. I watch other's safes in matches and think about what I might do and turn to a good player and ask if that is right or something else is better or if it is a really good one ask how they did that. Same thing with one-two rail kicks. I decide where the person should hit it on the rail and find out from a good player if I guessed right.

There is more but while I am watching matches, learning from watching other players is better use of my time then chatting and drinking beer.

What I learn at matches does not make me a good player yet. But it certainly helps give me an awareness of the intricies of the game. Then I go home and try to get better at potting so that much of what I have watched I can one day do.

Laura

eg8r
05-02-2003, 09:02 PM
[ QUOTE ]
There is more but while I am watching matches, learning from watching other players is better use of my time then chatting and drinking beer. <hr /></blockquote> Same here. If I am out to hang out, then I do not pay attention, however if I am in a match I am watching my opponent and when I am waiting for my game to start I watch the others. I try to always learn something new.

[ QUOTE ]
What I learn at matches does not make me a good player yet. <hr /></blockquote> I guess this statement is all relative to your definition of a good player. Surely you are not going to be the best in the house tomorrow after incorporating the new things you heard last night, however, it will help you in the long run.

Good luck.

eg8r

05-04-2003, 07:06 AM
sumthing to strive for!