PDA

View Full Version : 'feel' vs. mechanical (long)



heater451
08-24-2003, 01:52 PM
(Taken from the "Kinister Coaching Session" (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=ccb&amp;Number=96742&amp;page= 0&amp;view=expanded&amp;sb=5&amp;o=7&amp;fpart=1) thread:)<blockquote><font class="small">Quote smoovestroke:</font><hr>. . .They play it with "feel" not analysis. They also play with style and grace and I wish we had some American players that could not only play more like that but be more like the Filipino players off the table too. <hr /></blockquote>I do not believe that even the most **talented** player can achieve greatness, without some form of analysis. However, I do believe that the approaches are from opposite ends of the spectrum.

I think a 'mechanical' player will analyze going into a shot, making sure that his/her form is correct, and that the execution is as close to flawless (as learned) as possible. Then, if the shot is successful, the results are accepted as good, and the player moves to the next shot. An unsuccessful shot will likely be assumed as caused by a deviation in the routing, or a simple flaw in the exection.

OTOH, I think a 'feel' player will "know" what the balls will do, when they hit the shot. Like the mechanical player, success is (generally) accepted at face value, and the player moves onward. However, a feel player--assuming they are focused on advancement of their game--will do his/her analysis in the "post-shot" phase of an unsuccessful shot. Since the shot was expected to go, then it's necessary to know why it didn't go. This may cause a "creeping" towards a mechanical style, but there will still be less of a reliance on figuring out the shot before hand.

The interesting thing is, both players embody a type of 'faith' in their styles. The mechanical player has faith that a shot can be made a certain way, and that s/he only has to achieve that, whereas a fell player will have faith that s/he can make the shot, and "just does it".

Now, I also believe that either style of player, given enough time and experience, will approach, and/or eventually incorporate something of the other style. It's also quite possible that the two styles of thinking relate in a circular form of existence, where one style leads to the other, which eventually feeds back to itself--if that makes sense. The idea is that a strong player in one style may incorporate parts of the other, in order to make his- or herself an even stronger player.

What's also ironic, is that the two may interfere with each other. For example, I have often seen players who try so hard to make a shot, that they tense up and miss, and they could overcome this, by following either path/style. The shooter could concentrate more, think through the whole shot, and execute mecanically, OR s/he could simple understand that they know what to do, but they need to "let their stroke out" and sink some balls.

Okay, I'm tangentalizing, but all this talk of "style" has made me think about martial arts, and fighting styles. Like in the UFC (Ultimate Fighting Championship), most of the combatants have learned that it's necessary to augment their skills in one style of fighting, in order to counter another. This helps to overcome any "rock-scissors-paper" kind of cycle. While this doesn't relate to pool in a player vs. player way, it just goes to show that one way is not the only way. (Sorry, now I'm WAY off track. . . .)

As the buddha say: "Follow the middle path." (Okay, even further off track. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif )


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

landshark1002000
08-24-2003, 08:59 PM
Hi Heater451:

I agree. The Phillipinos have joined their mental game with their physical game.

Most U.S. players are taught some form of mental suppression. "You can't think. It'll mess up your game."

Voila. The shot routine is born to keep us as busy as astronauts in pre-launch with a checklist for morons.

"Pants on?" -check. "No drool on my face?" -check. ETC...

The mental game is a toying with failure; a tempting of our own fears. It's absurdity by the numbers.

--Ted from Phoenix

cheesemouse
08-24-2003, 09:57 PM
landshark1002000,

I think your on to something....and funny too....heehee LOL /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif...let'er buck!!!

Fred Agnir
08-25-2003, 07:08 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote heater451:</font><hr> (Taken from the "Kinister Coaching Session" (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=ccb&amp;Number=96742&amp;page= 0&amp;view=expanded&amp;sb=5&amp;o=7&amp;fpart=1) thread:)<blockquote><font class="small">Quote smoovestroke:</font><hr>. . .[Filipinos] play it with "feel" not analysis. <hr /></blockquote>

I think this is a gross generilazation based on absolutely nothing but guessing from observation. As the saying goes, "there's a method to their madness." I have no doubt that they analyze their mechanics. But their analysis is simply different.

I'll be honest with you (as I always am). The terms "feel player" and "mechanical player" are red herrings.

Fred

landshark1002000
08-25-2003, 01:15 PM
Hi Fred:
Just curious, Fred. Are your convictions about how they "analyse their mechanics", based on something OTHER THAN personal observation?

-Ted

Fred Agnir
08-25-2003, 01:28 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote landshark1002000:</font><hr> Hi Fred:
Just curious, Fred. Are your convictions about how they "analyse their mechanics", based on something OTHER THAN personal observation?

-Ted
<hr /></blockquote> Other than that's what I gather from discussions with one of the Filipino contingent, it's human nature. Can you even think for a second that they truly WOULDN'T analyze their mechanics?

You're turning around a statement that seems a bit ridiculous to begin with, which is why I responded. Let's not turn this around as if I was the one who gave out a post that seemed blatantly against any kind of common sense. Why would anyone believe that Filipino players don't analyze their mechanics?

Fred

heater451
08-25-2003, 04:42 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> . . .I'll be honest with you (as I always am). The terms "feel player" and "mechanical player" are red herrings.

Fred <hr /></blockquote>Fred, I am/was using the terms (with quotation marks) to denote something of extremes. It is a fact, of course, that neither truly exists without the other, but they do 'mix' differently within each of us.

However, I also see your point about the the analysis not existing--sorry, bad sentence. . . .When I wrote my post, I came to the point, several times actually, where I was just going to close the window, without posting it, because I felt that I was choosing an argument against a vague statement, and not a real point. And, I suppose I could defend myself on the weak notion that I "heard what wasn't said", but I find that pointless.

Inside the post, I was also leaning towards adding more about how a player with, say the "feel" might have achieved that by hitting a million balls "mechanically", but I was attempting to limit my divergence of thought. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Well, that being said, what, if any, terms would you substitute for "feel" and "mechanical"&lt;----I suppose this sh/could be "methodical", instead. . . .

And, now that I feel like diverging /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif, do you think that there is a quantifiable difference, between "Eastern" and "Western" players, due to any cultural differences?



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

heater451
08-25-2003, 04:52 PM
Ted/landshark,

Thanks for the reply--as I (finally) finished it, I was afraid that it might be confusing.

You certainly cut through my wordiness, got my gist, and summed it up very nicely--and humourously.

I think you're onto something, in that the way U.S. players are taught, that is part of the blame--although I also think it's a necessary evil, to obtain acceptable results, within a short timeframe. "Instant gratification" seems to be the 8th Sin. . . .

Do you think it's possible to teach someone to become a world-class player, by using a "Karate Kid"/learn without knowing that you learn type of approach?



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

landshark1002000
08-26-2003, 12:04 AM
Heater451:
If you are encouraged to be intuitive... does it make it so?

--Ask Fred. For him, the world is flat... and he's got two witnesses.

The interior game is a choice. So is learning an alternative to your current method.

If you can make a different choice; you can change your mind.

As far as I know, creativity is still a choice; and creative people are still able to learn from each other.

Your analogy of a teacher leading his student to grasp the basic ideas and helping them explore is very good.

Whether we learn to explore with a mentor or not is often just a matter of luck.

--Ted

Qtec
08-26-2003, 01:39 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I think you're onto something, in that the way U.S. players are taught, that is part of the blame--although I also think it's a necessary evil, to obtain acceptable results, within a short timeframe. "Instant gratification" seems to be the 8th Sin. . . <hr /></blockquote>



People play pool because they enjoy pocketing balls. The degree of difficulty in pool , to pot one ball ,is not that great.Anybody can pot a straight ball that's 2ft from the pocket.[ with the exception of Rackmup of course /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif] Technique becomes secondary.

Anybody who plays Tennis or Golf for the first time has to approach the game differently. In Tennis , just getting the racket to hit the ball is a problem . There is no way you are going to hit topspin backhands on your first day , forst year for that matter .To get any enjoyment out of the game you have to work on your technique.

Same wlth golf. Its no fun taking 12 every hole , constantly looking for your ball , going from one side of the fairway to another , taking swings and hitting the ground instead of the ball. Ouch ! To get more pleasure from the game you have to practice.

The object in the beggining should be to learn how to use a cue , not pot balls.

I see a players progression from begginer to top player not as a straight line , I see it as a circle.



Q

landshark1002000
08-26-2003, 02:47 AM
Hi Qtec:

It is a circle.

We learn the physical game. We advance our technique.

We become aware of the inner game later.

As we are able, it becomes more clear that movement begins in our mind.

Plainly, there are no words used to explain to the muscles "how" to move. It's non-verbal.It's muscle memory and desire.

You practice. You train that movement into memory. This is simple description of "feel".

But muscle-memory is not the first step toward movement.

Desire is.

Our will to act is a choice. Laden with verbal baggage; choices can be "right" or "wrong".

The mind uses a kind of shorthand about right or wrong actions by the body. Yes/no.

Shorthand "No's" are frequent around the pool table. (Missing the money ball comes to mind.)

As the circle comes round, the mental game gains importance.

No one hears or feels "no" when they are in-stroke.

We all hear it less as we play the table and not the opponent.

-Ted

Qtec
08-26-2003, 03:14 AM
Ah, a like mind ?

It is only when one completes the circle that one really understands the first lesson.

Q

Eric.
08-26-2003, 08:05 AM
Hey Heater,

Without elaborating(I'm at work /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif), I think both methods have it's own merits, depending on the individual. I tend to be more mechanical. I like to find my contact point, think about how hard I need to hit it, etc before I get down on the shot. Once I'm down, though, I try to shut up and picture the shot going as planned.

Johnny Archer uses a mechanical approach too. Archer will put his cue upto the OB to find the exact contact point. I remember someone saying once that that person "licks his chops" when he sees another player pointing the cue at the OB. That person would be sorely mistaken "licking his chops" with Johnny. Anyway, my point is that some people feel that you can't play your best pool being mechanical, I think you can.


Eric

08-26-2003, 10:19 AM

landshark1002000
08-26-2003, 11:43 AM
Hi Whitewolf:

Careful... Right Brain playing can threaten Left Brain analysis. Or is it just the Left Brain players who feel threatened?

Just kidding...

-Ted

Fred Agnir
08-26-2003, 01:18 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote whitewolf:</font><hr> Hi Fred. There you go again thinking inside that wonderful box of yours. Haven't you ever tried shooting fast and loose vs. slow and careful? Are you just so one dimensional that you refuse to discuss subjects due to your own bias? I think so, otherwise you would see that this question brought up has a lot of merit to it. Let me guess Fred, you shoot slow and methodical LOL.
<hr /></blockquote>
I'm so glad you were able to get such wonderful enlightenment from my post. Even though nothing what I said had any semblence to what you said.

Fred &lt;~~~ people have seen me shoot

Fred Agnir
08-26-2003, 01:28 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote heater451:</font><hr> Fred, I am/was using the terms (with quotation marks) to denote something of extremes. It is a fact, of course, that neither truly exists without the other, but they do 'mix' differently within each of us.<hr /></blockquote>

I don't think I was responding to your quote. Maybe I should have?


[ QUOTE ]
Well, that being said, what, if any, terms would you substitute for "feel" and "mechanical"&lt;----I suppose this sh/could be "methodical", instead. . . .<hr /></blockquote> I'll go with that.

[ QUOTE ]
And, now that I feel like diverging /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif, do you think that there is a quantifiable difference, between "Eastern" and "Western" players, due to any cultural differences?<hr /></blockquote>

Cultural and social would probably be a factor, but Eastern vs. Western? I don't know. The top Filipino players are fluid and loose. The top Taiwanese players look more stoic and methodical.

So, which one would be Eastern? And where does Stalev fit in all of this?

Fred

Fred Agnir
08-26-2003, 01:33 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote landshark1002000:</font><hr>
--Ask Fred. For him, the world is flat... and he's got two witnesses.<hr /></blockquote>Exactly where does this statement come from? If that's the conclusion you get from my posts, then maybe slowing down might help.

Fred &lt;~~~ carry on

heater451
08-26-2003, 04:40 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote heater451:</font><hr> Fred, I am/was using the terms (with quotation marks) to denote something of extremes. It is a fact, of course, that neither truly exists without the other, but they do 'mix' differently within each of us.<hr /></blockquote>

I don't think I was responding to your quote. Maybe I should have?


&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Well, that being said, what, if any, terms would you substitute for "feel" and "mechanical"&lt;----I suppose this sh/could be "methodical", instead. . . .<hr /></blockquote> I'll go with that.

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
And, now that I feel like diverging /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif, do you think that there is a quantifiable difference, between "Eastern" and "Western" players, due to any cultural differences?<hr /></blockquote>

Cultural and social would probably be a factor, but Eastern vs. Western? I don't know. The top Filipino players are fluid and loose. The top Taiwanese players look more stoic and methodical.

So, which one would be Eastern? And where does Stalev fit in all of this?

Fred <hr /></blockquote><font color="blue"> No, you didn't seem to be addressing my post directly, but by building an argument set around the "point" that you objected to, made me guilty of taking/making something out of nothing (possibly). Don't worry about it. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

. . .

Again, I was using terms very terms very broadly, using Eastern/Western as labels for the difference in how (I percieve) more Asian attitudes to be, versus Western (U.S.) ones.--Your examples of how the Filipinos and Taiwanese players definitely illustrates that flaw in my words. I guess, that certain Europeans apply different styles similarly, although I can't bring up any examples right now. . . .

Now that you mention Filipinos and the Taiwanese, though, any ideas why they follow their respective styles (in general)? That is, what in their cultures would you think provides the influences for adopting their particular styles?</font color>



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

Fred Agnir
08-26-2003, 07:32 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote heater451:</font><hr> Now that you mention Filipinos and the Taiwanese, though, any ideas why they follow their respective styles (in general)? That is, what in their cultures would you think provides the influences for adopting their particular styles?<hr /></blockquote>
I can make a whole lot of guesses, but they'd just be that: guesses. Many things have an effect on an entire culture.


Economic stability and religion come to mind immediately. The Philippines is made up now of mostly Christianity. Taiwan as far as I know is still made up of the Chinese "folk religion," Buddhism, Taoism and the like. That's a world of difference in philosophy.

Introduction of other "western" ideas to infiltrate the native culture. The Philippines was mostly tribal before the Spanish and the U.S. came. U.S. Pool was there long before it ever hit Taiwan. The Philippines' government is based on the U.S. government (President/Executive, Judicial, Senate).

Taiwan is a country that hasn't been occupied by any Western country (for any significant amount of time) as far as I know. Someone else with information have any factual insight on this?

So, in short, I would consider the Filipinos to have more of a "western" culture.

Fred &lt;~~~ just guessing

buddha162
08-26-2003, 10:28 PM
Hello Fred,

You are correct that Taiwan has never been occupied by a Western power in the modern era. I believe the Dutch used the island as a trade colony in the 1700's. Taiwan then became a Japanese colony for roughly 60 years, until after WW2.

But asides from the historical/cultural differences between Taiwan and the Philipines, I think other factors play a larger role in shaping the pool culture. Though Taiwan is just as humid as the Philipines, air-conditioning has been the norm in pool halls (all indoor spaces) for quite some time. Therefore you don't see many Taiwanese (Chinese) players use Efren's extra-long bridge and stroke, as they don't have to deal with the heavy humidity that slows down play.

Also, pool is seen as less of a wage-earner and more of a hobby in Taiwan; the gambling scene is no where near the scale and scope of the Philipines or even that of the US.

Roger

Tom_In_Cincy
08-26-2003, 10:54 PM
Could it be called.. Paralysis by Analysis?

Fred Agnir
08-27-2003, 06:07 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote buddha162:</font><hr> Though Taiwan is just as humid as the Philipines, air-conditioning has been the norm in pool halls (all indoor spaces) for quite some time. Therefore you don't see many Taiwanese (Chinese) players use Efren's extra-long bridge and stroke, as they don't have to deal with the heavy humidity that slows down play. <hr /></blockquote>I wonder about this. I think it's an interesting view for sure and one worth pursuing. How do we account for many of the younger Americans who have longer bridges? I've always attributed it to the game of 9-ball, as it dictated for many the longer bridge for more power (more speed at contact).

Was there any other billiard game in Taiwan before pool? I don't think there was much snooker in the Philippines, but both billiards and American pool have been there for quite a while. I'm thinking out loud that past billiard games may help to form an entire small nation's way of playing. That's with the idea that maybe the Dutch brought some form of billiards (English billiards, snooker) to Taiwan. Thoughts?

[ QUOTE ]
Also, pool is seen as less of a wage-earner and more of a hobby in Taiwan; the gambling scene is no where near the scale and scope of the Philipines or even that of the US.<hr /></blockquote> I wonder why this is (that the Philippines is a gambling society, while Taiwan is not). And for those who haven't figured it out, I'm Filipino, and am amazed how much gamble there is in my relatives.

Fred

buddha162
08-27-2003, 10:35 AM
Hello Fred,

Snooker was the primary game 2 to 3 decades ago; I believe they played on 5x10 tables and large balls.

Straight pool, however, is what most Taiwanese teenagers start off playing, and only recently (past 7-10 years) have 9-ball caught on. Even now it's not the preferred game of 90% of the playing population. This could have a lot to do with the style of play for sure.

As to American teenagers having long bridges, I wonder if that's an emulation of Efren and Busta. I think it's fair to say that the Filipinos' approach has worked its way (consciously/unconsciously) into pool halls all across America.
[ QUOTE ]
I wonder why this is (that the Philippines is a gambling society, while Taiwan is not). <hr /></blockquote>
Chinese love to gamble as well, it's just not as prevalent in pool halls. It's common to play for table money, but that's about it. I wonder if the economy of the two respective countries have something to do with it, ie less opportunity in the Philipines, pool/gambling viewed as practical wage-earning, etc.

Roger

Iowashark
08-27-2003, 10:53 AM
Hey everybody, this is my first post ever, though I've been reading posts for awhile now.

I couldn't help but comment here, and I think that the context of the original post has been dissected way too much here. In other words I can see what heater451 is saying. I've seen the differences in players with the 'natural' feel for the game compared to players who have taken lessons or gone to a billiards school, or simply watched videos to improve their technique. IMO, I prefer the grip it and rip it technique of the feel player, mainly because I prefer speedy play. But that doesn't make it the right way to play. There isn't a right way to play the game, or a better way to play, it all depends on the player.

AustinFilAm
08-27-2003, 10:59 AM
I think I can comment on this "first hand".

When I was playing pool in the Philippines 'til my late teens, I played mostly by feel and enjoyed the game more. I learn by watching good players and tried to emulate them. After a while, I was shooting by instinct, trusting my shots and felt like I was playing good.

25 years later, back into pool, and all this information (internet, books, and instructors) available, I now find myself shooting more mechanical than by feel and enjoying it less.

I think I'll "follow the middle path" and try not to be a victim of "paralysis by analysis".

With all this instructional materials readily available to anyone, I'd say you'll see more methodical and fewer fluid and loose players worldwide. Blame it on progress. JMHO

And talk about a gambling society, in a fun Filipino gathering, besides good food and karaoke /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif , card games and mahjong are part of the scene.

Angelo

Wally_in_Cincy
08-27-2003, 11:05 AM
Greetings person from Iowa. Do you know the Witches of Eastgate who play at Smokey's? I met them in Vegas.

Iowashark
08-27-2003, 11:29 AM
I would definitely know the players, but I'm not familiar with the team. The billiard community is pretty fine knit around central Iowa. This must be either a BCA team or a VNEA team. We had 3 APA teams advance to Vegas out of Iowa last week, and they weren't one of them. By the way, I just got back from there and it might quite possibly be the funnest week of my life up to date. If anyone of you have never experienced Vegas pool atmosphere, you haven't lived yet.

magicman
08-27-2003, 10:27 PM
its a feel game, play it by feel, you win, play it mechnically, you lose.

bluewolf
08-28-2003, 06:42 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> I'll be honest with you (as I always am). The terms "feel player" and "mechanical player" are red herrings.

Fred <hr /></blockquote>

This seems right to me. In good pool, there is a lot of strategy so how can one say they do not think? I used to say this but I think I meant when down on the ball. Randy g in poolschool said 'standing =thinking'. Then when down on the shot seems to be execution part.

Watching a player play, one seems to be 'mechanical', one 'free flowing'. I wonder if this is style rather than what is going on in their brain.

Laura

Fred Agnir
08-28-2003, 08:18 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bluewolf:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> I'll be honest with you (as I always am). The terms "feel player" and "mechanical player" are red herrings.

Fred <hr /></blockquote>

This seems right to me. In good pool, there is a lot of strategy so how can one say they do not think? I used to say this but I think I meant when down on the ball. Randy g in poolschool said 'standing =thinking'. Then when down on the shot seems to be execution part.<hr /></blockquote>

You're getting close to the heart of how I think of it, although it extends well beyond strategy. How you blend the "feel" with "mechanics" is all personal (like Heater451 alludes). To give it "feel player" or "mechanical player" title suggests (to me at least) a nearly all or nothing approach. I don't think this is anywhere near the case for any good player. Contrary to what Ray would have you think, I play by feel, and I check my mechanics. This notion of mutual exclusivity is, IMO, a red herring.

I also don't think that we can make a definitive judgement on how a person analyzes the game based solely on their unorthodoxed stroke. I think if everyone who thinks they can make this judgement would list down all the players they believe " analyze by feel not mechanics" I'm guessing that the list would be made up solely of players with non-orthodox mechanics (by U.S. pool player standards). If that's the case, then that would be a gross generalization based solely on observation. Hmmm... I said that earlier. I think you can make judgements based on observation about a lot of things, but how a person analyzes his game? I need convincing.


Fred

Fred Agnir
08-28-2003, 08:19 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote magicman:</font><hr> its a feel game, play it by feel, you win, play it mechnically, you lose. <hr /></blockquote> And if you play it by feeling your mechanics, do you tie?

SPetty
08-28-2003, 11:41 AM
Fortunately I keep my feathers numbered for, for just such an emergency. (http://www.barbneal.com/wav/ltunes/foghorn/fogleg41.wav) /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Fred Agnir
08-28-2003, 12:15 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SPetty:</font><hr> Fortunately I keep my feathers numbered for, for just such an emergency. (http://www.barbneal.com/wav/ltunes/foghorn/fogleg41.wav) /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif <hr /></blockquote>

I'm a rookie.

Fred

bluewolf
08-28-2003, 08:23 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote magicman:</font><hr> its a feel game, play it by feel, you win, play it mechnically, you lose. <hr /></blockquote>

Why not both? Why cant a person appear to be mechanical but really be playing by feel ?

Laura

Rod
08-28-2003, 09:26 PM
Heater,

I've stayed away from this post for good reason. There isn't any earth shattering reasoning so far. If someone "thinks" they have an answer, I'm going to run like hell. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

~~~ rod, not expecting to run

landshark1002000
08-28-2003, 10:24 PM
Hi Laura:

"Watching a player play, one seems to be 'mechanical', one 'free flowing'. I wonder if this is style rather than what is going on in their brain."


What a lovely quote.

An outward visible thing hinting at what is invisible and internal.

Style is the visible expression of our internal process.

--Now let's look at "thinking".

Randy G rightly separates one kind of thinking (planning/strategy/decisionmaking) into a separate stage...prior to getting down on the shot.

Here's an explanation: ask someone to remember something from the past. Watch their eyes.

Typically the eyes look upward, out of focus, while they try to recall.

Sense information (like vision, smell or hearing) is restricted as the brain searches for the memory.

This restriction is no odd event, we often do everyday things (like driving home in the car)and find ourselves home with little memory of the driving experience because we were so caught up in other thoughts.

This is the key... those other thoughts were in such sharp focus that our brain restricted our attention (and our memory).

We used the clutch, brake and gas pedal; signalled our turns and drove safely. All the while, we thought so very hard about something else.

The physical movements, the coordinated use of arms, hands and feet; all this driving was done using one part of the brain to control physical movement AND make driving decisions; while the primary focus of our attention and our "thoughts" was on a completely different subject.

The main subject was an internal dialogue, an excercising of memory and fantasy.

But despite this focus on the unreal we still safely drove home.

--We are capable of several different kinds of "thinking".

But our full attention can only be committed to one at a time.

-Ted

Iowashark
08-29-2003, 08:32 AM
IMO, the difference between mechanical and feel can better be seen in golf. When comparing Tiger and Mike Weir, Tiger gets up to the ball looks at the green and swings, if something goes wrong he'll swing again after the shot(checking the stroke). Mike Weir get up to the ball, takes several practice swings, addresses the ball, takes a half swing to make sure the stroke is lining up, then swings. The mechanical players seem to have that little coach in their head constantly reminding them "okay, feet together, head down, don't rush, etc." It's not that it's a bad technique, some players need a routine to achieve success. Other players play with feel and try to keep the brain from analyzing things too much.

Fred Agnir
08-29-2003, 08:36 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Iowashark:</font><hr> IMO, the difference between mechanical and feel can better be seen in golf. When comparing Tiger and Mike Weir, Tiger gets up to the ball looks at the green and swings, if something goes wrong he'll swing again after the shot(checking the stroke). Mike Weir get up to the ball, takes several practice swings, addresses the ball, takes a half swing to make sure the stroke is lining up, then swings. The mechanical players seem to have that little coach in their head constantly reminding them "okay, feet together, head down, don't rush, etc." It's not that it's a bad technique, some players need a routine to achieve success. Other players play with feel and try to keep the brain from analyzing things too much. <hr /></blockquote>It's seems this post illustrates what I'm talking about.

It's been chronicled over and over how both Weir and Tiger have been analyzing and tweaking their respective mechanics. Yet you (general) view Tiger as a feel player. Maybe (as Heater451 says) you really mean "methodical" which in my opinion is not equivalent to "mechanical."

Fred &lt;~~~ thinks Mike Weir's swing looks like he swings with feel.

Iowashark
08-29-2003, 08:50 AM
I think, Fred, this may be where we disagree. When I think of mechanical and feel players, I think of the preshot routine. Not the shot itself. I think almost all players when looking for a certain result of a shot will play the shot itself the same as anyone else, but I feel the mechanical part comes from the approach one takes up to the point of the shot. The shot itself will almost always be played by feel.

Dead Stroke
08-29-2003, 09:43 AM
In my opinion the ratifications of the excessive implimented descendants of the billiards legacy is approached with defiant self-expression with only the deprimisions of exceptional extendancies.

On the other hand the geometry of the angles of the path of the inevitable diplomacy are extended with gratifying siptometry.

Now, if you use the degrees to a full extent with the angled deflection, your inclusion will be exceptably excecuted to extreme proportions.

That short seemingly uneducated three-paragraph essay is only my absolutely implimented decisive extrimented opinion.

Qtec
08-29-2003, 11:10 AM
Bollocks.

Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Stretch
08-29-2003, 11:40 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Dead Stroke:</font><hr> In my opinion the ratifications of the excessive implimented descendants of the billiards legacy is approached with defiant self-expression with only the deprimisions of exceptional extendancies.

On the other hand the geometry of the angles of the path of the inevitable diplomacy are extended with gratifying siptometry.

Now, if you use the degrees to a full extent with the angled deflection, your inclusion will be exceptably excecuted to extreme proportions.

That short seemingly uneducated three-paragraph essay is only my absolutely implimented decisive extrimented opinion. <hr /></blockquote>

Bob Fancher! That you? <font color="red"> </font color> St /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Rod
08-29-2003, 01:17 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Sense information (like vision, smell or hearing) is restricted as the brain searches for the memory.

This restriction is no odd event, we often do everyday things (like driving home in the car)and find ourselves home with little memory of the driving experience because we were so caught up in other thoughts.

This is the key... those other thoughts were in such sharp focus that our brain restricted our attention (and our memory).

We used the clutch, brake and gas pedal; signalled our turns and drove safely. All the while, we thought so very hard about something else.

The physical movements, the coordinated use of arms, hands and feet; all this driving was done using one part of the brain to control physical movement AND make driving decisions; while the primary focus of our attention and our "thoughts" was on a completely different subject.

The main subject was an internal dialogue, an excercising of memory and fantasy.

But despite this focus on the unreal we still safely drove home.

--We are capable of several different kinds of "thinking".

But our full attention can only be committed to one at a time.

<hr /></blockquote>


Ted,

What you have described is the wrong way to drive home. Attention should be kept on your car and traffic around you.

I should say I see alot of what your talking about though. People with cell phones growing out of their ear, brushing hair, eating a cheese burger, shaving,etc. They could be just thinking about the kids, present for the wife or god only knows what, but their an accident waiting to happen.

Yes they think about stuff and they remember little if anything, not just because of the many different thoughts besides driving although it is one reason. I think it's more than that.

Driving home yesterday, I was aware of my driving. I am a defensive driver and try to blend in traffic. Listening to an old song I became aware I was in the clouds per-say. I thought to myself pay attention to traffic although I was doing a fine job.

I drove home completely aware of all the traffic and the song had me relaxed but focused. To me this is just a form of self hypnosis. I was completely aware and right afterwards I may be able to tell you a lot about the drive home. I don't know why anyone would want to know. LOL However if it's not soon afterwards it will be lost as a routine. We usually don't remember any vivid details in routines, unless its a wreck or something, that's why there called routines.

I think the same could be said about pool. Personally I remember little about a pool match. If asked right afterwards I may remember a few details. If it's a few hours later I may not remember hardly anything. If it was what I'll call a routine match, I just move on, it's history.

I was no doubt focused on the match. I didn't have a cell phone growing out of my ear, I kicked his butt, but yet I don't have any sense of what really happen later on. I might know more about that match than the drive home. That is because it was more eventful, not because I was thinking of other things driving home.

I think you can be completely focused on task at hand, as you should be, and not remember many details of what happened. We all handle this as individuals. I know some that play and remember every vivid detail. I know because I have to listen to them whine! I think there the ones that are not focused on the game, get in wrecks, speeding tickets, etc. LOL But yet you couldn't tell in a pool game because they remember way more than I do.

I think I'm thinking to much, or not enough. ha I wasn't going to get trapped in this thread. I don't even remember the first part exactly. If I was driving a car, I'd of already killed someone, or playing pool my butt would have been kicked, real hard. I'd remember that. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif


Rod

smoovestroke
08-29-2003, 01:56 PM
This thread has gotten woven into a pretty big rug but I just have to give it one more weave. To me, mechanical is always having a set pre-shot routine similar to Gregg Norman in golf. There is not much fluidity in the stroke either. In pool, Jeff Carter comes to mind.

Feel on the other hand, would be best exemplified by some of the Filipino players, e.g., Efren, Santos and Busta. They tend to crank their shooting arm around and around until they get that right feeling and then let it go. Another good example is Vivian Villareal or the "Texas Tornado". She doesn't take a lot of time to analyze the shot or have much of a pre-shot routine. She gets into a physical groove and just lets her creative or feel side come on.

Rod
08-29-2003, 02:35 PM
Well actually I just commented on how the brain can work to a degree. Really I don't know nutin and I don't want to. Computer says do this, I visualize and do. I am a feel player but It ain't worth discussing here even if I though I was qualified. So far nothing has shook the earth yet. LOL

HOWARD
08-29-2003, 04:38 PM
Heater 451,

Well from my point of view, it starts in general, when you are young and you go into the your first hall. You see the balls going in, feel all that is pool - much to long to describe - and start playing. I believe when you start it is all feel. The feel of clumsiness of stick in your hand, the awkard feel of the bridge with stick sawing away. The attempt to pocket the ob with a cb.

Then watching better players and hearing "he has good eye" -
which you learn is totaly wrong as you progress.

Once you progress to for want of a better expression, to a certain point. Then things that are mechanical enter into it.

And you box on trying to master the game and still another point is reached where you are trying to blend the mechanical part with the feel part of the game. And all the time working on the position, the speed, the difference in games and the strategic part of the various games.

A lot wind not to much progress.

Howard

landshark1002000
08-29-2003, 10:55 PM
Hi Rod:

I like your example of the defensive driver.

It's like the shot routine with it's blatant focus on checking fundamentals... very self-conscious.

But, as you showed , you can still get home (make the shot) without this self-conscious method.

No player can avoid at least some measure of awareness of their own technique while playing. -That's a given.

The distinction is between the defensive driver and the preoccupied one.

We don't see much of the self-conscious defensive driver while playing in-stroke. We are so preoccupied with the game that much of our sensory awareness (hearing/smell/touch/etc.)is suppressed.

Sensations that are critical to play are heightened and focussed (short range vision/ spatial reasoning/kinesthetic awareness).

What is being heightened is our non-verbal sense of the game. It's the weight of the cueball and the force to move it across the table. It's the sensation of movement to come. It's the pure resolve that this spot on the table is the final resting place for the cueball. Down on the shot we feel the rightness, the powerful quality of, yes.

We feel our body is part of that yes.

--Defensive drivers only "feel" it in their head.

Feel is not analytical. It's not like "defensive driving" at all.

Defensive driving (analytical/mechanical/self-conscious play) is like your mind saying to itself, "I am in a car and I am controlling it".

Feel is like your mind saying to itself, "I go where I want because I AM the car".

Ted

Feel, whether in-stroke or not,