Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

J. Parica vs. Bugs L.O.P. III 1992

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Cowboy Dennis View Post
    Parica went for the ball uptable just as Efren did in a thread I posted a few weeks ago. I'd like to see one American player play this positch just one time in a layout like this.

    [ATTACH]6609[/ATTACH]

    He left it here for position:

    [ATTACH]6610[/ATTACH]
    the difference between great from good or good to bad
    is the precision you can execute
    if no american does that its because they practice shots not cueball placement
    jmho
    icbw

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by lll View Post
      the difference between great from good or good to bad
      is the precision you can execute
      if no american does that its because they practice shots not cueball placement
      jmho
      icbw
      The Americans aren't well-rounded players. How many of them play any Billiards games? Or full-rack Rotation games? How many of them can shoot opposite handed? How many can't use a bridge? Efren & Parica have been beating them for how long? It's no accident. They are true students of the game. We've got a Bank Pool player on here who doesn't comment in the One-Pocket forums because, according to him, he doesn't play one-pocket good enough to comment. You would think that's the kind of player that should be asking questions. Most of the American players are losers who don't want to work for a living, therefore they've never invested the time in learning their craft.

      Dennis

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Cowboy Dennis View Post
        The Americans aren't well-rounded players. How many of them play any Billiards games? Or full-rack Rotation games? How many of them can shoot opposite handed? How many can't use a bridge? Efren & Parica have been beating them for how long? It's no accident. They are true students of the game. We've got a Bank Pool player on here who doesn't comment in the One-Pocket forums because, according to him, he doesn't play one-pocket good enough to comment. You would think that's the kind of player that should be asking questions. Most of the American players are losers who don't want to work for a living, therefore they've never invested the time in learning their craft.

        Dennis
        Oh you got me started I can personally think of many many players, some even aquaintences, that would in fact strive to play better everyday, and improve every aspect of their game, but I really believe it just doesn't make financial sense. To dedicate yourself to something like that you have to be making a living off of it, and you just can't do that.

        Like anything, in pool to gain that 1% on your competitors would be everything, but to get that extra 1 or 2% you gotta put in some serious time. If say schmidt practiced and got in dead punch over a 1 year period, and elevated his game, what would that get him? It would be another thing if there was a big million dollar tournament he could take off every week. The point is why would schmidt even bother? I think the proof is in the pudding in that they don't, as you say.

        I'll tell you what, what if with the help of others here we started coming up with a list of top notch talent that don't really play too much anymore. That is a big list. I dont think it has anything to do with them being losers, or not wanting to refine their games. It is about the lack of a viable career. You just simply can't put the required time in unless you are living in your moms basement and single... then you could probably get by financially.

        Anyway, I have already posted I feel this way, many don't agree. But I think if you saw some money in pool the US would at least have their fair share of the proportion at the top, but i'm damn sure they'd be practicing and loving it too. There would be a bunch of little bruce lee's of pool running around if you ask me. Ok rant end now.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by tylerdurden View Post
          Oh you got me started I can personally think of many many players, some even aquaintences, that would in fact strive to play better everyday, and improve every aspect of their game, but I really believe it just doesn't make financial sense. To dedicate yourself to something like that you have to be making a living off of it, and you just can't do that.

          Like anything, in pool to gain that 1% on your competitors would be everything, but to get that extra 1 or 2% you gotta put in some serious time. If say schmidt practiced and got in dead punch over a 1 year period, and elevated his game, what would that get him? It would be another thing if there was a big million dollar tournament he could take off every week. The point is why would schmidt even bother? I think the proof is in the pudding in that they don't, as you say.

          I'll tell you what, what if with the help of others here we started coming up with a list of top notch talent that don't really play too much anymore. That is a big list. I dont think it has anything to do with them being losers, or not wanting to refine their games. It is about the lack of a viable career. You just simply can't put the required time in unless you are living in your moms basement and single... then you could probably get by financially.

          Anyway, I have already posted I feel this way, many don't agree. But I think if you saw some money in pool the US would at least have their fair share of the proportion at the top, but i'm damn sure they'd be practicing and loving it too. There would be a bunch of little bruce lee's of pool running around if you ask me. Ok rant end now.
          TD,

          Why would you quote my post as though you were going to respond to it (agreeing or disagreeing) and then not write one thing in your post that is remotely related to anything in my post?

          Dennis

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Cowboy Dennis View Post
            TD,

            Why would you quote my post as though you were going to respond to it (agreeing or disagreeing) and then not write one thing in your post that is remotely related to anything in my post?

            Dennis
            You finished up your statement with the statement, "Most of the American players are losers who don't want to work for a living, therefore they've never invested the time in learning their craft." Most of his post is related to that. Perhaps not having to use a bridge, shooting opposite-handed nor full-rack rotation games don't pay off enough. Although, the first two are questionable when combined, because that would mean that they're stuck in the mud when it comes to any shot not within arm's reach and I can't see that as a possibility in order to get as far as they do.

            Now, back to the shot choice..

            I can understand the idea that he'd spin it three rails to get up there, but as you said, he got the second ball with a great shot. From what I've read, great shots aren't something that you want to make a habit out of when you risk selling out in 1P. That's why I had changed my mind on 3 rails.. why go for a long haul for a potentially short gain when you can make a bigger change in the game by making an easy move without the risk? I know my knowledge is closer to 1 on a 100 scale for this game, but it just seems like trying too hard for not enough to get up there.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Banks View Post
              You finished up your statement with the statement, "Most of the American players are losers who don't want to work for a living, therefore they've never invested the time in learning their craft." Most of his post is related to that. Perhaps not having to use a bridge, shooting opposite-handed nor full-rack rotation games don't pay off enough. Although, the first two are questionable when combined, because that would mean that they're stuck in the mud when it comes to any shot not within arm's reach and I can't see that as a possibility in order to get as far as they do.

              Now, back to the shot choice..

              I can understand the idea that he'd spin it three rails to get up there, but as you said, he got the second ball with a great shot. From what I've read, great shots aren't something that you want to make a habit out of when you risk selling out in 1P. That's why I had changed my mind on 3 rails.. why go for a long haul for a potentially short gain when you can make a bigger change in the game by making an easy move without the risk? I know my knowledge is closer to 1 on a 100 scale for this game, but it just seems like trying too hard for not enough to get up there.

              The shot Parica chose was a good shot for several reasons, i'll explain. We as players when at the table have a feel for what we can do, and what we may have problems in doing. Parica "felt" the angle of the shot and obviously believed he could position the cue ball where it needed to be for the next shot, also if he fell short with the shot there was always the escape option with either the 5 ball or 9 ball, dropping under the 1 ball. The option of going into the balls was appealing but could be a game loser by going into the balls and scratching cross side, plus the possibility of coming up with another shot if successful with going into the balls would imo be 50-50 at best. Playing Parica's shot imo was playing the percentages, he was taking a free shot of building a large lead without ever losing control of the table. That's my take on the situation that he was presented with.

              Dr. Bill
              Last edited by wincardona; 07-30-2012, 11:45 PM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by vapros View Post
                are you asking how I would play position? I would go straight up the table, inside english off the foot rail, to shoot the other balls on my side of the table. I could also draw-drag the cb across the short rail for a tricky cut on the 5 ball, but I might screw it up and have to do something else, like dealing with the bankable balls on Bugs' side. It's a nice opportunity, but one that I will have to handle carefully. I don't want to go away with just one ball.
                I agree with your way of thinking, but going one rail using inside english is tricky. If you believe you can control the cue ball without running the risk of going into the wrong side of the rack, go for it. If you happen to run into the rack bad things are in store for you with the results, that's why I liked the way Parica played position, it was a win win proposition playing it the way he did.

                Dr. Bill

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by wincardona View Post
                  We as players when at the table have a feel for what we can do, and what we may have problems in doing. Parica "felt" the angle of the shot

                  Dr. Bill
                  Lest anyone think this shot was not exactly what he played:

                  Click image for larger version

Name:	jp looking.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	48.2 KB
ID:	385974

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X