buddy jeremy #2

[sappo]

Keith, one of the most important factors to consider when confronted with a shot selection decision is ...the ability and skill set of your opponent. When playing a lesser skilled opponent you then have the luxury to be more selective with shots that may carry more risk. However, when playing a top player the criterion for choosing shots are quite different than when playing lesser skilled opponents, as was evidenced here with Buddies selection. I found this out through my life time of playing top players. That's one of the reasons why players try to educate themselves and develop different skills, so that when confronted with this type of a situation they have the ability to take advantage of the opportunity when it presents itself. However, if you're not skilled enough to try certain shots that carry more risk than you can afford, then yes, playing passively is the right decision. And in no way am I trying to be offensive with my advice, it's just the way it is and should be received as such.

Thanks,
Dr. Bill

Okay Bill, with all the top and experienced players, with the exception of Freddy, agreeing the 3 rail bank is the best shot Ill yeild at this point. Today when Im at the poolroom Ill be working on that shot. I would however like to know how much better that shot is as opposed to the passive shot. Lets take Buddy out of the shot and replace him with Alex P and lets say it Alex's shot. If they played 20 games with Alex starting 10 games with the 3 railer and 10 other games with the passive shot and the score of each game was the same Alex needs 1 ball and his top rated opponent needs all 4 balls, how many games do you think Alex would win in each situation??? thanks for your imput. Keith

 

[wincardona]

Okay Bill, with all the top and experienced players, with the exception of Freddy, agreeing the 3 rail bank is the best shot Ill yeild at this point. Today when Im at the poolroom Ill be working on that shot. I would however like to know how much better that shot is as opposed to the passive shot. Lets take Buddy out of the shot and replace him with Alex P and lets say it Alex's shot. If they played 20 games with Alex starting 10 games with the 3 railer and 10 other games with the passive shot and the score of each game was the same Alex needs 1 ball and his top rated opponent needs all 4 balls, how many games do you think Alex would win in each situation??? thanks for your imput. Keith

I really can't answer that question, but I am confident that anyone with the skill set to execute that shot will win more games than shooting the passive option simply because it's then ..a free shot to win the game.

Dr. Bill

 

[onepockethacker]

Okay Bill, with all the top and experienced players, with the exception of Freddy, agreeing the 3 rail bank is the best shot Ill yeild at this point. Today when Im at the poolroom Ill be working on that shot. I would however like to know how much better that shot is as opposed to the passive shot. Lets take Buddy out of the shot and replace him with Alex P and lets say it Alex's shot. If they played 20 games with Alex starting 10 games with the 3 railer and 10 other games with the passive shot and the score of each game was the same Alex needs 1 ball and his top rated opponent needs all 4 balls, how many games do you think Alex would win in each situation??? thanks for your imput. Keith

Not that you directed this to me but I would like to say the key to all this and the main point is that YOU NEVER PASS UP A FREE CHANCE TO WIN THE GAME.. the reason the 3 railer is the best shot is because its FREE if the rest of the ball layed differently then there is a real good chance the 3 railer would not be the shot. Understand that the longer a game continues and the more chances you give GREAT players innings at the table they are liable to come up with something to steal the game from you. How many times have you seen even great players have the lead or needing one ball and they screw up something easy or scratch or something and the whole game changes. It happens.

 

[Cowboy Dennis]

The most prolific poster in this thread(like every other), who by the way had a better view of this shot at the time (from the commentary booth), did NOT like the 3-railer. He stated that he would not shoot any ball in this situation that had a possibility of scratching. So much for the audio record. Danny D. insisted the 3-railer was the only shot.

P.S. He was most adamant about not liking the 3-railer even after Hall shot & made it.

You guys don't see it in the stills but the cueball appeared to come very close to kissing the 12 ball.

By the way, here's where the cueball ended up. It looked like a thinner cut to me but I guess not.

 

[jrhendy]

The 13 & 2-balls are messing things up for Buddy. I don't know what he's looking at in the picture. But Buddy is a shooter, so he might take a run at the 2-ball 3-railer with low english, leaving the CB on the head rail-- hopefully with the 10-ball as a blocker.

Nick V. would probably roll the 10-ball up near the corner pocket and 1-ball to start a wedge.

Me? If I didn't like the 2-ball shot, I'd probably just roll the CB off the 10, and over to the side rail. Jones needs 'em all. Why get tricky?

BTW, this match was played in the late 90's, when JJ was still real heavy. He sure slimmed down, and consequently added probably 15 years to his career.

Doc

JJ must be feeling his oats Doc, He offered to fight Earl during a Bonus Ball match.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQ0RISs4PLM[/ame]

 

[vapros]

Just out of curiosity, has anyone ever kicked Earl's ass over his behavior? Or for any reason?

 

[Bankin Ben]

Vapros, not sure anyone thinks Earl is worth the time nor energy it would take. Also knowing Earl it wouldn't do any good. As Ron white says, you can't fix stupid!!

 

[gulfportdoc]

JJ must be feeling his oats Doc, He offered to fight Earl during a Bonus Ball match.

Heh, heh. Earl is half crazy, and he allegedly knows karate, but yet JJ has about 4 inches and 50 pounds on him; so I doubt that Earl is going to want to run outside with JJ for a tussle... I doubt that anyone who has known Earl over the years has not considered throwing him off a tall building at times!

Doc

 

[fred bentivegna]

I just realized something. I have been posting on these WWYD's for years and I still havent come up with the right shot in all that time!:frus Amazing.

Considering some of the players who learned from me included, Efren Reyes, Jose Paricea, Chris Gentile, Tom Spencer, Darrell Abernathy, Piggy Banks, Jet Johnson, Tom Karabatsas, Rudolpho Luat, etc., etc., and let us not forget the thousands of people who have purchase my books and DVDs, that is an incredible statistic.

It might have something to do with the fact that I dont put up the $5-$20 solution with Ray Charles as the opponent. I try to think of the best solution that would work for someone under the most extreme of conditions, stuff that would allow one to execute admirably no matter what was his emotional state.

The ironic thing of all this, is that I cant seem to get my opponents to shoot at all these "computer hangers" when they are in an actual game with me. :frus

The reasoning that you "have" to shoot a very hard shot that you can win with, but also have to face the reality that it is probably the only shot that you can also LOSE with (via a bad looming kiss), when you have a 7 to 4 lead and all the best of it with the table ball position is to me untenable.

If you are playing pool to have fun, then go ahead and shoot the 3 railer. Me, I am never going to chance blowing a game like this and unduly motivating me opponent (did we forget about the consequences of blowing this game by an unnecessary mistake?) Do we want our opponents to think that at any point we might step on our dick and give away an already won game? Do you want your oppo to have that attitude? Or do you want him to be suffering when you have the nuts, knowing that only a miracle by him is going to save him, because you are only going to give him shit and then push him into it?

I am going to cite a perfect example of what I am talking about. I will post the story on my next post.

Beard

 

[fred bentivegna]

This is an excerpt from my upcoming book. This is what happens when your opponent is instilled with the mind-set that you are determined to give nothing away:


At the Burlington, IA tournament in 1976, where there was probably the greatest assembly of top players ever gathered, I played Larry Liscotti a game of Banks in the gambling room for my whole bankroll, $300. I had no chance playing Larry Straight pool or Nine ball, and he didn’t play much One pocket, so our only neutral game was Bank pool.

Billy Incardona was up with Larry, and he insisted that the only way he would let Larry play me was if I emptied my pockets and played for all that I had. Now, what was unusual was that the tables used in Burlington were some kind of off-brand, and they were the toughest tables I ever played on in my life. So I knew that no matter what, Larry wasn’t going to make short work of me and my one-barrel. I reluctantly agreed.

We wound up playing on a table where one particular pocket wouldn’t allow you to make a straight-back into it; if you hit it hard, it would bounce out, if you shot it easy, it would roll off! The table was so brutal, when the score got to 5 to nothing, me, Liscotti paid off and quit.


Beard

 

[tylerdurden]

The reasoning that you "have" to shoot a very hard shot that you can win with, but also have to face the reality that it is probably the only shot that you can also LOSE with (via a bad looming kiss), when you have a 7 to 4 lead and all the best of it with the table ball position is to me untenable.


Beard

Not to beat a dead horse, but I do agree with that in this spot. Yet, however contrary this may be, I also agree with sappo in that if all these guys are saying this is a must shoot, I will consider this stuff more when the balls lay well for it. If I wanted to dump here the shot I'd play is the 3 railer cus there just doesn't look like any other way to lose the game to me.

 

[backplaying]

The most prolific poster in this thread(like every other), who by the way had a better view of this shot at the time (from the commentary booth), did NOT like the 3-railer. He stated that he would not shoot any ball in this situation that had a possibility of scratching. So much for the audio record. Danny D. insisted the 3-railer was the only shot.

P.S. He was most adamant about not liking the 3-railer even after Hall shot & made it.

You guys don't see it in the stills but the cueball appeared to come very close to kissing the 12 ball.

By the way, here's where the cueball ended up. It looked like a thinner cut to me but I guess not.

View attachment 8404

Are you saying it was Billy I. that was in the booth and didn't like the 3 railer?

 

[onepockethacker]

I just realized something. I have been posting on these WWYD's for years and I still havent come up with the right shot in all that time!:frus Amazing.

Considering some of the players who learned from me included, Efren Reyes, Jose Paricea, Chris Gentile, Tom Spencer, Darrell Abernathy, Piggy Banks, Jet Johnson, Tom Karabatsas, Rudolpho Luat, etc., etc., and let us not forget the thousands of people who have purchase my books and DVDs, that is an incredible statistic.

It might have something to do with the fact that I dont put up the $5-$20 solution with Ray Charles as the opponent. I try to think of the best solution that would work for someone under the most extreme of conditions, stuff that would allow one to execute admirably no matter what was his emotional state.

The ironic thing of all this, is that I cant seem to get my opponents to shoot at all these "computer hangers" when they are in an actual game with me. :frus

The reasoning that you "have" to shoot a very hard shot that you can win with, but also have to face the reality that it is probably the only shot that you can also LOSE with (via a bad looming kiss), when you have a 7 to 4 lead and all the best of it with the table ball position is to me untenable.

If you are playing pool to have fun, then go ahead and shoot the 3 railer. Me, I am never going to chance blowing a game like this and unduly motivating me opponent (did we forget about the consequences of blowing this game by an unnecessary mistake?) Do we want our opponents to think that at any point we might step on our dick and give away an already won game? Do you want your oppo to have that attitude? Or do you want him to be suffering when you have the nuts, knowing that only a miracle by him is going to save him, because you are only going to give him shit and then push him into it?

I am going to cite a perfect example of what I am talking about. I will post the story on my next post.

Beard

This is my take on the situation Freddy.. First off I consider the 3 railer on the 2 ball a risk free shot to win the game. If I have a risk free shot to win a game I am shooting it EVERYTIME. Lets see if we can have a friendly debate as I am not taking a shot at you..
I see your reasoning but I think your style and thinking on this was probably dead on the money right in the 70' and 80's.. I think back then there were two styles of players. You had movers and you had shooters and your squeeze play style was probably guaranteed to get a sell out from your opponent in a couple of innings. The shooters didn't know all the moves back then so you only had to squeeze for a couple of innings before they imploded.. Today however I think you have shooter/movers, shooters and movers ( Gentile I would consider a mover). Today because of accustats, live streaming, books and videos like yours, EVERYONE knows most of the moves and shots so if you start squeezing someone you will have to probably squeeze for alot longer meaning YOU have to perform more also which brings more chance for error on your part also.
This is just my take on how the game has changed. I think leads in games are way less safe today than they were probably 20 or 30 years ago. My reasoning is this.. I think back then you could probably leave a guy a very marginal shot and the majority would pass on it even if trailing except maybe a Ronnie Allen or that type of player. Im not saying players are playing the game of one pocket better today, they are just playing a different style. If you pass up a good shot to win the game today and an inning later you leave a low percentage shot the majority of players today are swinging at it and most shoot so straight they will probably make it and run out OR because of all the resources I just listed they now know how to shoot the shot where they can get the cueball prety safe at the same time and because your a squeezing type player they dont have to worry if they leave YOU a marginal shot because you will probably not shoot at it.. I think players know more "shots" on average today and so a shooter from 30 years ago might not have recognized a certain shot that EVERYONE knows today.Take Shane for example, he might be the best one pocket player in the world but he is definitely not the best mover. There is no way in hell I would pass up that 3 railer on the 2 ball against Shane. If I get a good chance to beat him Im going for it. Like I said earlier the more chances you give great players innings at the table the more likely they will come up with something to break your heart... How many times have you seen players walking away from a table after losing a game or match against a top player they had almost wrapped up and the losing player says " look at this ****ing shot this guy just made to beat me". Take Billy I. and Shane when they played the one ball one pocket game where Billy had to make 1 ball and Shane had to make 2. Shane out ran the nuts and you even said you came away saying you saw Shane shoot shots that before hand you considered real low percentage but you went home and after practicing them you could see how they are shootable shots.

P.S. after this post im scrambling my fighter jets, launching my subs and going to DEF CON 3 :lol

 

[lll]

^^^^
nice post
objective and to the point and not personal
with an interesting perspective on how the game or should i say players(shooters with knowledge) are evolving

curious what the others will say

 

[fred bentivegna]

This is my take on the situation Freddy.. First off I consider the 3 railer on the 2 ball a risk free shot to win the game. If I have a risk free shot to win a game I am shooting it EVERYTIME. Lets see if we can have a friendly debate as I am not taking a shot at you..
I see your reasoning but I think your style and thinking on this was probably dead on the money right in the 70' and 80's.. I think back then there were two styles of players. You had movers and you had shooters and your squeeze play style was probably guaranteed to get a sell out from your opponent in a couple of innings. The shooters didn't know all the moves back then so you only had to squeeze for a couple of innings before they imploded.. Today however I think you have shooter/movers, shooters and movers ( Gentile I would consider a mover). Today because of accustats, live streaming, books and videos like yours, EVERYONE knows most of the moves and shots so if you start squeezing someone you will have to probably squeeze for alot longer meaning YOU have to perform more also which brings more chance for error on your part also.
This is just my take on how the game has changed. I think leads in games are way less safe today than they were probably 20 or 30 years ago. My reasoning is this.. I think back then you could probably leave a guy a very marginal shot and the majority would pass on it even if trailing except maybe a Ronnie Allen or that type of player. Im not saying players are playing the game of one pocket better today, they are just playing a different style. If you pass up a good shot to win the game today and an inning later you leave a low percentage shot the majority of players today are swinging at it and most shoot so straight they will probably make it and run out OR because of all the resources I just listed they now know how to shoot the shot where they can get the cueball prety safe at the same time and because your a squeezing type player they dont have to worry if they leave YOU a marginal shot because you will probably not shoot at it.. I think players know more "shots" on average today and so a shooter from 30 years ago might not have recognized a certain shot that EVERYONE knows today.Take Shane for example, he might be the best one pocket player in the world but he is definitely not the best mover. There is no way in hell I would pass up that 3 railer on the 2 ball against Shane. If I get a good chance to beat him Im going for it. Like I said earlier the more chances you give great players innings at the table the more likely they will come up with something to break your heart... How many times have you seen players walking away from a table after losing a game or match against a top player they had almost wrapped up and the losing player says " look at this ****ing shot this guy just made to beat me". Take Billy I. and Shane when they played the one ball one pocket game where Billy had to make 1 ball and Shane had to make 2. Shane out ran the nuts and you even said you came away saying you saw Shane shoot shots that before hand you considered real low percentage but you went home and after practicing them you could see how they are shootable shots.

P.S. after this post im scrambling my fighter jets, launching my subs and going to DEF CON 3 :lol

Rob, everything you say has merit, except you are ignoring the fact that there is a kiss on the shot. You are past posting me on this, using the fact that Buddy made the shot. I never said it couldnt be made. I also said I would risk the kiss if I was the one that needed the 4 balls. And let's face it, there aint no human on earth that knows how to beat a kiss better then me.

Here is just a simple fact to acquire. When you are playing off of the outside of a ball and banking it mulitiple rails off of the long rail, and you are hitting a 1/2 ball -- which is pretty much what Buddy would have needed to do to make the 3 railer -- there is a very, very big risk of a kiss near the 3rd rail as was evidenced by Buddy just missing kissing on his shot.
The main reason is that at a 1/2 ball, both balls will be traveling at the same speed. That is the problem. There are of course, adjustments that you can make to help you to beat the kiss; high ball, low ball, left or right english, but the kiss always remains a possibility.

If you watched the video Billy Smith put up for that match where the guy ran 22 Billiards and lost the game, in the very first inning the guy runs 5 off of the break and for the 6th point he caught a kiss. When I watched the video I said to myself, if this guy beats this kiss, I will jump off of a roof. Thankfully, what happened was what was supposed to happen.

Finally, let me straighten this out also. Yes, I am a squeeze type player now, but I have available in my innards, a power game that is scary. Did you think I played with Bugs, Mexican Johnny, Ronnie, etc., and could only duck?
The main reason the power game is on the shelf, is because a high level of execution is required to perform such. I seldom talk about it because I aint so anxious to release stuff that I still dont see much of it being put into todays play.

I am going to dig up and post an out shot I made on Efren Reyes, in case you think I only wanted to bunt out.

Beard

 

[Cowboy Dennis]

I just realized something. I have been posting on these WWYD's for years and I still havent come up with the right shot in all that time!:frus Amazing.

The reasoning that you "have" to shoot a very hard shot that you can win with, but also have to face the reality that it is probably the only shot that you can also LOSE with (via a bad looming kiss), when you have a 7 to 4 lead and all the best of it with the table ball position is to me untenable.

If you are playing pool to have fun, then go ahead and shoot the 3 railer. Me, I am never going to chance blowing a game like this and unduly motivating me opponent (did we forget about the consequences of blowing this game by an unnecessary mistake?) Do we want our opponents to think that at any point we might step on our dick and give away an already won game? Do you want your oppo to have that attitude? Or do you want him to be suffering when you have the nuts, knowing that only a miracle by him is going to save him, because you are only going to give him shit and then push him into it?



Beard

Freddy,

I did not like the 3-railer but I didn't like banking the 10 into those two balls either. In a situation like this a player should know exactly where the ball is going when he shoots it. You proposed moving three balls and the cueball. You would have no way of knowing where they would end up. That's why I liked banking the 10 back near the footrail.

One-Pocket is a perfect example of a game that requires a player to know when to shoot or not. There is a time for daring and a time for caution and a wise man understands which is called for.

You make several great points but they are also, at times, offset by the equal & opposite scenario.

1. Me, I am never going to chance blowing a game like this and unduly motivating me opponent (did we forget about the consequences of blowing this game by an unnecessary mistake?)

This line of thinking is correct quite often but the equal & opposite of it is this: Do you want to go into a "try not to lose from here" mode and end up losing because of it? It does happen.

2. The reasoning that you "have" to shoot a very hard shot that you can win with, but also have to face the reality that it is probably the only shot that you can also LOSE with (via a bad looming kiss), when you have a 7 to 4 lead and all the best of it with the table ball position is to me untenable.

I also agree with you here but it's a fine line between shooting a very difficult, chancy shot or going into "lockdown" mode and giving up no shot at all. I like the lockdown mode in this particular layout.


Not that it really matters that it was Hall shooting but he was down 3-2 in games at this point in the match. JJ played a simple rolling safety off the balls by the side pocket and Buddy seized the shot. Maybe he was sending a message too: That weak shit ain't gonna play. JJ had won the first three games in this match and Hall won the next three, this 3-railer tied the match at 3-3.

Sometimes it's not a bad idea to send a message but I don't think was the time. That's the great thing about this game: We all have different ideas of when to shoot and when to play safe. I wouldn't have shot that 3-railer with a gun to my head but not because I'm scared of it. It absolutely was not a free shot and anyone who thinks they can see it on one screenshot from one angle is wrong. It almost kissed near the right corner. It had disaster written all over it but Hall got away with it. It was not free.

When you have a guy down 7-4, step on his neck.

Dennis

 

[fred bentivegna]

Rob, everything you say has merit, except you are ignoring the fact that there is a kiss on the shot. You are past posting me on this, using the fact that Buddy made the shot. I never said it couldnt be made. I also said I would risk the kiss if I was the one that needed the 4 balls. And let's face it, there aint no human on earth that knows how to beat a kiss better then me.

Here is just a simple fact to acquire. When you are playing off of the outside of a ball and banking it mulitiple rails off of the long rail, and you are hitting a 1/2 ball -- which is pretty much what Buddy would have needed to do to make the 3 railer -- there is a very, very big risk of a kiss near the 3rd rail as was evidenced by Buddy just missing kissing on his shot.
The main reason is that at a 1/2 ball, both balls will be traveling at the same speed. That is the problem. There are of course, adjustments that you can make to help you to beat the kiss; high ball, low ball, left or right english, but the kiss always remains a possibility.

If you watched the video Billy Smith put up for that match where the guy ran 22 Billiards and lost the game, in the very first inning the guy runs 5 off of the break and for the 6th point he caught a kiss. When I watched the video I said to myself, if this guy beats this kiss, I will jump off of a roof. Thankfully, what happened was what was supposed to happen.

Finally, let me straighten this out also. Yes, I am a squeeze type player now, but I have available in my innards, a power game that is scary. Did you think I played with Bugs, Mexican Johnny, Ronnie, etc., and could only duck?
The main reason the power game is on the shelf, is because a high level of execution is required to perform such. I seldom talk about it because I aint so anxious to release stuff that I still dont see much of it being put into todays play.

I am going to dig up and post an out shot I made on Efren Reyes, in case you think I only wanted to bunt out.

Beard

This was from when I could pocket a ball. And to also address Dennis' concerns, I would know where those 3 balls were going (approximately), they are going to be opened up and all on my side. I would not use a speed that would risk them being knocked over to the other side. Plus, I would make sure that no matter what the cue ball would be on the back rail. Worst I could do is leave a cross corner -- long cross corner -- and he would have hell to pay to shoot at one of those and not leave me a bank or a shot.

I am in total agreement with the step on his neck line of thinking.

Beard

Still waiting for a fu*kin cookie!:frus

 

[piggybank04]

nice 3 railer!! going to try it at the pool room tomorrow--i love to bend the rock especially in bar table 8 ball--you get some strange looks from people haha

 

[onepockethacker]

This was from when I could pocket a ball. And to also address Dennis' concerns, I would know where those 3 balls were going (approximately), they are going to be opened up and all on my side. I would not use a speed that would risk them being knocked over to the other side. Plus, I would make sure that no matter what the cue ball would be on the back rail. Worst I could do is leave a cross corner -- long cross corner -- and he would have hell to pay to shoot at one of those and not leave me a bank or a shot.

I am in total agreement with the step on his neck line of thinking.

Beard

Still waiting for a fu*kin cookie!:frus

You and Dennis made some good points but too bad you talking about the wrong shot!! I have already said i wouldn't have shot the 13 ball because I knew it would be close to a kiss and was not free.. I said I would 3 rail the 2 ball and THERE IS NO KISS ON IT making it a free shot to win the game!! As I already said the more innings you give great players at the table to beat you the more likely they will come up with something to do just that. You also say that the worst you would do is leave a long cross corner with your safe choice.. well guess what with Jeremy needing them all he would love to have that shot.. One more thing that nobody has mentioned or noticed which I did.. The reason Buddy banked the 13 ball instead of the 2 ball was to open up the banking lane on his side rail for later. If Buddy had missed the 13 ball Jeremy would have to move it and now the 2 ball banks straight back. With the 13 ball where it was nothing banks straight back. I think Buddy saw this and that is why he chose the more risky 3 railer on the 13 ball than on the 2 ball

 

[wincardona]

You and Dennis made some good points but too bad you talking about the wrong shot!! I have already said i wouldn't have shot the 13 ball because I knew it would be close to a kiss and was not free.. I said I would 3 rail the 2 ball and THERE IS NO KISS ON IT making it a free shot to win the game!! As I already said the more innings you give great players at the table to beat you the more likely they will come up with something to do just that. You also say that the worst you would do is leave a long cross corner with your safe choice.. well guess what with Jeremy needing them all he would love to have that shot.. One more thing that nobody has mentioned or noticed which I did.. The reason Buddy banked the 13 ball instead of the 2 ball was to open up the banking lane on his side rail for later. If Buddy had missed the 13 ball Jeremy would have to move it and now the 2 ball banks straight back. With the 13 ball where it was nothing banks straight back. I think Buddy saw this and that is why he chose the more risky 3 railer on the 13 ball than on the 2 ball

Rob, the 2ball three railer was a free shot and for those who wouldn't shoot it are just passing up a free opportunity to win the game. Cowboy mentioned that Buddy was down 3 to 2 in games, but what does that have to do with playing any shot during any game? Nothing The score of a match has absolutely no bearing on what shot a player should shoot in a game. Simply put...you play the shot that offers you the best chance to win the game, regardless of the score of the match.

Like I mentioned earlier, when playing a top player you must stay aggressive, passive play will not beat top players. Of course it's all relevant to your skill set but if you have the skills to execute certain shots you would serve your self much better if you used them. Allow me to give you an example. Lets take the situation where there are two balls on the foot spot and your shooting against a top player. The top player needs them both and you need only one ball. Years ago it was never even thought of to play the top ball and double bank the bottom ball in situations like this...not true today. Matter of fact there was even a thread that addressed this situation and I was the only one who strongly encouraged players to develop the feel for the shot and use it in situations that called for it. When I played Shane in Tunica I wasn't allowed to play the shot :heh:frus I wonder why? Because even though there was a certain amount of risk with the shot it was the best shot for the scenario with a B player that had the skills to execute the shot playing an A player. Again here in this match Buddy needs only one ball but that didn't preclude him of playing the three railer. He obviously evaluated the situation with who he was playing and how the balls were positioned, and chose the 13ball bank over the 2ball bank because he felt good about the shot. You know what...It worked. However, we still have people saying that it was the wrong shot. Lets see what we have here....We have arguably the best pool player in the last 50 years who's as solid a player as there is shooting a shot in a game where he needs only one ball to his opponents four balls and not only pockets the ball but also positions the cue ball near the top rail in a very difficult position for his opponent had he missed.:frus Wrong shot??? Ask Jeremy if it was the wrong shot. I could offer you a football analogy that would be a fair comparison. Good coaching will put the ball in the air when leading by a touchdown with 3 minutes left in the game, playing against a top quarterback on third and 6 to third and 15, as opposed to running the ball. Make the first down..game over. Then the team that has the lead don't have to worry about Manning, Rogers, Brees, or any other top quarterback coming back and beating them. Sometimes when you try to step on someones neck you end up stepping on your own.

Allow me to answer the COWBOYS statement about the call that I made in this match. I very well could have said that I wouldn't of shot the 3 railer because it looked to me that it was laying difficult and could very easily end up scratching. And if I truly believed that then to me it was the right call, and piece of advice. Another thing..it was 20 years ago..sometimes people learn more about certain things and change their opinion and what at one time was bad may be good 20 years later. Of course COWBOY was born smart and he doesn't need to learn anything..which has been evidenced time and time again on the forum.

Another thing that hasn't been mentioned, that needs to be.The 3 railer on the 2ball was an easier shot to avoid the kiss with and it also positioned the ball near his pocket, so why didn't Buddy shoot the 2ball instead of shooting the 13ball?? For those who have the understanding of the game and the players that play it ...know the answer.

Dr. Bill