Posted by Dan Jensen
I occasionally wonder how to define a basketball "pure shooter" and no one seems to be able to help me. Maybe they will mention someone like Reggie Miller as an example but no one seems to have a precise definition. Do any of you?
It sure is hard to get a definition of a pure shooter.
Posted by: Dan Jensen | April 09, 2006 at 10:36 PM
A pure shooter is one who is mechanically sound and consistently accurate. Shooters who are not mechanically sound have a tendency to be streaky and have shooting slumps.
Posted by: Pat Jensen | April 10, 2006 at 06:58 AM
And we need to ask Peggy if Coach was a pure shooter.
Posted by: Patrick Jensen | April 10, 2006 at 07:01 AM
That's a good question that deserves an answer. I hope Peggy still checks this site.
Posted by: Dan Jensen | April 10, 2006 at 08:35 AM
I don't have a definition but think it is more than mechanics. It has to do with how often the ball goes in the hole.
I think free throw shooting may be the best gauge since there are so many variables in field goal shooting. Anyone who can shoot 90 percent from the line would qualify in my book and the percentage probably should be a bit lower than that.
Who is our all-time best free throw shooter? I don't know. I have asked Buddy Carlisle if he knows what Paul Trcka's shooting percentages were since he was a teammate and has much better access to the archives than any of us. Trcka does have the consecutive free throw record at 38.
I checked stats on Bennie Lenox. He shot 83 percent from the foul line and 47.5 from the field. That last figure is pretty pure, it seems to me.
Terry Mathis ranks high in career shooting at Sam Houston State with 83.3 from the line and 45.8 from the floor. I have no idea what he shot at Clear Creek.
I do know that all three of those guys could flat shoot--whether pure or not.
Posted by: Dan Jensen | April 10, 2006 at 01:02 PM
Those Bennie Lenox stats above are for his senior year.
As a sopomore, he was 40.7 percent from the field and 72 from the foul line. As a junior, he was 40.6 and 82.6 respectively.
I also recall that he ranks high all-time at Texas A&M on free throws but don't recall the percentage.
Posted by: Dan Jensen | April 10, 2006 at 01:06 PM
Bennie from 1961-64 at A&M was 4th in FT percentage at 80%, and 1st in SWC FT percentage at 80.4%. Career he was 404-505, and conference 246-306. Bennie was also 8th in career points at 1344, and 5th in career avg. at 18.4 @ A&M. Jeff Overhouse ranked 8th in rebounding avg. at 9.5, and 2nd in conference with a 10.5 avg. per game.
Posted by: Terry Mathis | April 10, 2006 at 07:23 PM
Jeff Overhouse went to A&M? I sure missed that one.
Posted by: Dan Jensen | April 10, 2006 at 08:49 PM
Jeff Overhouse @ A&M from 1970-73
Posted by: Terry Mathis | April 10, 2006 at 09:23 PM
Mainly to keep the discussion alive, I'm not sure the free throw percentage is a good gauge of a pure shooter, certainly not the best gauge. A pure shooter would almost certainly be a good free throw shooter, but it doesn't work the same in reverse, i.e., a good free throw shooter is not necessarily a good field goal shooter. Free throws are unchallenged, close range, the distance is always the same, and I think the percentage is elevated when there are two shots. Even players with mechanical flaw(s) can become proficient with enough free throw repetitions.
Perhaps the subject of another discussion is the habit seen often in the pros where a shooter steps away from the line after shooting his first of two free throws. I have always believed the second shot was easier and made a higher percentage of the time than the first shot. Stepping away after the first shot, in effect makes the second shot a first shot. Have some fun with this one, boys.
By the way, my earlier definition was mechanically sound AND consistently accurate.
Posted by: Pat Jensen | April 11, 2006 at 12:14 PM
I asked Buddy Carlisle about this subject and while he gave no definition, he says the term fits his erstwhile teammate Paul Trcka, "As far as being a pure shooter, Paul Trcka was definitely one I was first hand and Bennie (Lenox) would have to rank up there too. I have had a number of good shooters who didn't necessarily have great stats, but just had good shots. All of them had loose wrists and great backspin on their shots."
I asked him if he recalled what kind of free throw percentage Paul Trcka had and he said he thought it about 85 percent.
Posted by: Dan Jensen | April 11, 2006 at 02:16 PM
I don't know why the name of Curly Lenox didn't come quickly to my mind on the subject of shooters because he was one of the very best that I saw at Clear Creek.
Since I do think free throw shooting is an important factor in such a determination, I checked the stats--and was a bit disappointed. From the foul line, Curly shot 74 percent as a sophomore and junior and improved to 81 percent as a senior. Good but certainly not great.
Brother Pat values field goal shooting more and Curly doesn't disappoint there. He hit 44 percent as a sophomore, 45 as a junior and a plumb sparkling 48 percent as a senior.
He did not shoot free throws as well as big brother Bennie but was better (percentage wise) from the floor. I wonder what little brother Scooter shot? Them Lenox guys could flat shoot.
Posted by: Dan Jensen | April 12, 2006 at 12:13 PM
Terry Mathis, in an e-mail to me, brings up an interesting perspective regarding shooters.
He talked about his Sam Houston team going on the road and beating Southwest Conference champion Rice, 89-86 during the 1969-70 season.
"We have talked about pure shooters, but I would like to
bring up about good shooting gyms. Autry Court, home of the Rice Owls, was
my kind of a good shooting gym. I felt very comfortable in this gym. I
will never forget the giant curtain at the south end. I had my career high
31 points at Sam vs. Rice in the victory."
Do any of you other former players have a particular gym where you liked to play?
Posted by: Dan Jensen | April 12, 2006 at 01:01 PM
I'll take the half-moons at old Webster High any day.
Posted by: Pat Jensen | April 12, 2006 at 01:16 PM
Gregory Gym on the campus of The University of Texas in Austin, where the State Basketball Tournament used to be played, was another very good gym for shooting. I just wished we could have played (1) more game in that building. You could smell the blood, sweat, and tears in that place. It was all basketball. Just thinking of it, gives me chill bumps.
Posted by: Terry Mathis | April 14, 2006 at 05:34 AM
Thinking of it only makes me want one more crack at Phillips.
Posted by: Pat Jensen | April 14, 2006 at 12:07 PM
One more crack at Phillips would be my choice too and another would be the 1960 shocker to Linden-Kildare in the opener with Bennie Lenox being held in check. I don't think anyone could do that twice.
Terry is referring to the huge rally by South San Antonio that wiped out a big halftime lead his senior year. I also recall the year before against San Antonio Marshall when we had the ball stolen twice for layups to force an overtime and another state tournament loss.
Posted by: Dan Jensen | April 14, 2006 at 01:47 PM
I always liked my old gym, Starhan Gym, at Southwest Texas. like Terry's home gym at Sam, it had walls close behind the glass giving shooters a good perspective. I always found big and open coliseum types as the toughest. East Texas Stae in commerce used to set up a floor in the middle of an old airplane hangar...my least favorite.
And dan...the last couple of minutes in regulation against Marshall is still a little uncomfortable to think about.
Posted by: Paul Hackett | July 27, 2008 at 12:44 PM
What a nice surprise to see Paul Hackett adding to this site. I have good memories of him from days of yore and hope he will continue to post. There have been some previous posts about him and I hope he has read them--particularly about the time (the only time) that the Cubs beat him in Little League.
Posted by: Dan Jensen | July 27, 2008 at 03:37 PM
hey dan,
Thanks for the kind comments in one of your past posts about my senior year and the free throw shooting/pure shooter notion.
Many of us wish that Nolan would have gone to another school although, oddly enough, we had some reasonable success against him in terms of wins and losses.
Lastly, I don't know if you remeber Coach Tommy Davis. He coached the baseball team during my junior and senior years. I actually worked for him as a coach in Liberty after I graduated. I am sad to report that he passed away from a stroke two weeks ago. He had been in a variety of administrative positions in the Liberty ISD.
He was a great guy and I firmly believe that it was he who got the baseball proagram going for the success it experienced in '66 and '67.
By the way, did you mention the times that I actually pitched in winning games against the cubs.
paul
Posted by: Paul Hackett | July 29, 2008 at 01:22 PM
By the way, didn't you read about my award winning strategy in the Cub-Dodger matchup that got rained out?
And, sad to say, I have no recollection at all of your baseball coach Tommy Davis. I do recall Paul Gips having some of his football assistants coach the team about that time though.
Posted by: Dan Jensen | July 29, 2008 at 03:24 PM
Another thing Paul. I knew nothing of your career after Southwest Texas. Give us a resume. I didn't know you coached.
And, tell us why you did not pitch for Southwest Texas. You could have been a rare college three sport letterman.
Posted by: Dan Jensen | July 29, 2008 at 03:28 PM
after graduation I coached for 5 years before entering the professional business world and have enjoyed a succesful career in the food service and print industries, serving in a variety of field and corporate positions.i will celebrate my 36th wedding anniversary on august 5th and have two boys. the oldest works for dun & bradstreet and the youngest will graduate from lsu with a politicall science degree in mid august. my wife of 36 years is avery successful high school choir director and we live in plano now. as for baseball and college, the program at swt was not too inspiring and in the naia at that time we still had 20 days of organized spring basketball. to this day though, many of my friends and acquaintances are surprised to find that my first sport passion is and has always been...baseball.
Posted by: paul hackett | July 29, 2008 at 06:39 PM
Hello Dan and Terry,
I am only 2 years late but I wanted to comment on the pure shooter characteristics. I believe like with most skills in sports, the intangible element of "Touch" is most prevalent with great shooters. We all know what they have. Unlike other "good Shooters" the ball seldom seems to clank off the rim" Misses are usually off of the front of the rim and most of the great shooters seem to fewer in and outs than others. The ball seems to continually hang around the rim until it falls in or it bounces high of the rim and seems to find its way into the bottom of the net. Great quarterbacks have it...Great putters in golf have it...and I am certain that it exists in other sports. I kn ow one thing...a player can get great coaching, develop terrific form and be consistent in executing technique...but I think touch is a gift...think Larry Bird..Jerry West
anyway...just my opinion
Posted by: paul hackett | August 13, 2008 at 04:49 PM
Here's something Paul Hackett has shared with a group of us on another venue.
The tale involves Paul and Curly Lenox, both among the greatest pure shooters Clear Creek ever had, while they were teammates at Southwest Texas.
Curly was a senior when I transferred and redshirted at SWT so most days I guarded him and he guarded me as we helped the varsity prepare.
You can give this one back to Curly. He was the best I have played against or saw at tapping the elbow of a shooter. For those of you who might not know...that is a very subtle and difficult technique used to absolutely stop a shot.
Curly would tap my elbow...I would throw up an airball...and then he would just grin while I fumed.
We used to watch him during games. he played the wing on the 1-3-1 zone and about 2-3 times a game the other teams best outsiide shooter would throw up an airball or a true brick and then come down the court challenging Curly's birthright and his relationship with his mom.
Curly...would just Grin.
Posted by: Dan Jensen | November 06, 2008 at 05:10 PM
while not a creek story specifically, this one certainly speaks to the "pure shooter"topic.
Years ago I had occasion to go to a Houston Rocket game and for whatever reason my companions and I arrived very early. After the obligatory stop for hot dogs and libations we took out seats near a group of season ticket holders. On the floor were Calvin Murphy, Rudy Tomjonavich and Mike Newlin. They were obviously playing horse but after watching for a while I could not tell how they were keeping score. i uttered this thought to my friends and then found out the answer. one of the season ticket holders turned to us and said
Made Shots That Touch The Rim...DON'T COUNT.
That's Pure Shooting
Posted by: paul hackett | November 11, 2008 at 04:16 PM
I love this topic and thought I would try to get some dialogue going. While i don't follow NBA Ball as closely as I once did, I do find that I miss the days when the league was composed of many good shooters and the mid range jump shot was a highlky valued skill as opposed to the lost art that it is in today's game. There are some Pure shooters though and here is my short list of guys that I think can "drain it" from long range. One caveat is that I only took inot consideration guys that play alot and not the dudes on the end of the bench who belong to the "Slow white guys who can shoot club".
Here are some of my picks:
Dirk Nowitzki
Peja Stojakovic
Ray Allen ( he can shoot with the game on the line
Michael Redd
Maybe the best shooter I ever saw in the NBA was Drazen Petrovic. he played in the early 90's and was tragically killed in an auto accident.
I look forward to all of your thoughts.
Paul
Posted by: Paul Hackett | December 15, 2008 at 04:42 PM
My days of even halfway following the NBA pretty much ended with the back to back titles of the Houston Rockets' "never underestimate the heart of a champion" and really not too much past the days of Wilt Chamberlain, Bob Pettit and Elgin Baylor. By the way, did y'all knowthat Coach Carlisle once surmised that Baylor may be the best of the bunch?
Which brings me to Paul's pure shooter subject. How about Reggie Miller as a modern day guy that could really shoot?
Actually, I would rather ponder who was Clear Creek's best pure shooter. That was on another thread.
Posted by: Dan Jensen | December 16, 2008 at 09:23 AM
As we all know Clear Creek has had a lot of pure shooter's. I did not see a lot of them play but the two I played with were Paul Hackett, and Scooter Lenox.
Posted by: Terry Mathis | December 20, 2008 at 07:23 AM
I moved away from the Clear Creek area after graduation and only came down occasionally to visit my parents. So, I am not too familiar with players after my era. But, of those I played with or saw play earlier, I think James Davis had the best pure form when shooting and was pretty dang accurate when he put it up. I know I always tried to emulate his style and release but never quite got there. His playing partner, Robert Brown, was pretty good himself.
Posted by: Ed Davis | December 20, 2008 at 04:31 PM
I forgot Reggie, Dan. The other thing I liked about him was the fact that he had an asassin's heart. It is curious how some really good players never had the knack or in some cases the desire to have the ball late in a close game. I played with a really good player, in college, who seemed to never be open or never in position to have to take a game winner...or loser.
Jerry West was amazing late in the game as was Pete Maravich. While not a pure shooter, Jordan had the killer instinct as well as Kobe in today's NBA.
As for best Creek pure shooters, I think Scooter certainly was in that class and Terry may be too humble to mention himself. Paul Trcka had a great touch aroound the basket but I only saw him play a couple of times.
A lot of guys must have been able to shoot because Creek won a lot of games.
A Lot of games.
Posted by: paul hackett | December 20, 2008 at 11:28 PM
Terry, what was your scoring average as a senior in high school? How did you get most of your points? I don't recall you being as much of a long range shooter as you were at Sam Houston.
You were very good at the foul line. Do you know what your percentages were in high school at the line and from the field?
Posted by: Dan Jensen | December 21, 2008 at 03:41 PM
Dan,
My senior year I averaged 16.8, Scooter 17.5, and Richard Huhn 18.6 points per game. As a team we averaged 79 points per game. I did more drives to the basket in HS. I think I hit around 45% from the field and somewhere around 80% from the line. I feel like I flopped at the state tourney by hitting only 11 points against South San. If I would have held my average we would have won, and faced Lamesa in the finals. Scooter hit 22 and Richard 19 to hold up their end.
Posted by: Terry Mathis | December 23, 2008 at 07:08 PM
Just a thought or two on Terry's comments. 79 per game in the 60's was pretty salty. i remember that we were around 76 in '66.
As for shooting percentages, I think we all got better as we got older. Stronger, wiser, more time in the gym. 45% is really pretty good for someone who wasa multisport athlete. people always talk about the magical 50% marker, but if you play an outside spot, you have to get some layups and short "around the basket " buckets because you just won't shoot 50% from 18-20 ft if you are a primary scorer.
Terry and scooter too, do you ever wish the we would have had the 3point shot when we played.
Posted by: paul hackett | January 05, 2009 at 12:15 PM
Paul, good point about the effect of the three point line in days of yore. What would Pete Maravich have averaged?
Posted by: Dan Jensen | January 05, 2009 at 03:12 PM
Interesting thought about the Pistol. The one thing about considering the 3 point shot is how it might change someone's approach to the game. In my opinion, really good scorers have the 3 point shot in there quiver but are not "3point specialists"..you know guys that can shoot or sorta shoot and just hang around the line.
look at Nowitzki, Ray Allen...guys like that who do not necesarily look for the 3 but take them in the motion of the game.
as for Pete...it would certainly have to have added 8-12 points per game. I would say, however, that defensive tactics of the time, a lot of zone defense, encouraged giving up the outside shot. the zones were more passive than they are today. most coaches wanted to ensure that the low post was protected and reb ounders were in position. Today's college game is predicated on pressure much further out past the top of the key than we saw in the 60's and 70's. Better athletes may have somethi9ng to do with that.
Posted by: paul hackett | January 06, 2009 at 09:36 AM
Pure Shooter- Fundamentally sound and consistant with shooting form.
Posted by: swizzybaby | January 11, 2010 at 10:08 PM
But what if the ball doesn't go swizzing through the net?
Posted by: Dan Jensen | January 12, 2010 at 11:55 AM
A Pure Shooter hits 7 to 8 shots out of ten attempts regularily.
A Gunner hits 2 to 3 shots out of ten attempts regularily.
Posted by: Don Siedenburg | October 25, 2010 at 12:07 PM
Who says? Advance and be recognized.
Posted by: Dan Jensen | October 25, 2010 at 12:29 PM
Just a comment on the "pure shooter" conversation and I hope we hear from Mathis and both Lenox"s on this. I don't know if i could quantify the skill by shear numbers ...I just know that both when practicing and also in games...there were just places on the court that I always felt like I would make evry shot. of course I didn't but sometimes it was like a hitter must feel when he gets the green light on a 3 and 0 count and it's right where he wants. And it is funny the things shooters do to establish comfort and rythym.
We all seen the shooter who receives a pass starts to shoot and then realizes he is wide open...hesitates and well ..misses his shot.
I cannot remneber who taught it to me but in those situations I always used "a dribble for balance". I did not actually move spots...it was just a thing I did.
The educated eye can identify pure shooters when they see one.
My question to the group...can anyone recall a true pure shooter..not a scorer...with an unorthodox form and release.
Posted by: paul hackett | December 07, 2010 at 03:27 PM
I agree with Paul that, the more a person watches and analyzes the sport of basketball, the easier it is to recognize a player that is a pure shooter. The ball is never a burden to him. Everything about his shot seems to flow flawlessly. He has very good form, maybe not perfect, but it is mechanically correct. The ball is always brought up to a little above eye level in one fluid motion with his release being unblemished. Finally, his efforts is climaxed by the "busting of the net" as Coach Vernon McDonald would say. The rim was never touched.
When Kevin Durant played his one year at the University of Texas, I watched him play a couple of games on television before actually going to one just to see him in person. I was interested in watching the guy Coach Barnes called, perfection, and analyzing his shooting myself. It didn't take long until it was obvious that he unquestionable epitomizes the term, "pure shooter." He could shoot from anywhere on the court with the same perfection. Although, he would slip inside on occasion, I don't usually think of an inside player as a pure shooter. Durant shot most of his shots from outside.He reinforced my humble opinion that twenty feet or more away from the basket is where the true pure shooter resides, not under the basket dunking the ball. The bottom line,then, is that the term itself is fairly difficult to describe, but the person is easy to recognize on the court. It just takes a little practice.
My answer to your question, Paul, is that I believe a player should have good form in order to be a great shooter. That said, there has been a few players that were good shooters using an unorthodoxed style, but only a few. While coaching I did have a 6'3" boy that came into the program in the ninth grade with a goofy looking form. Nevertheless, he could really shoot. I worked with him on his shot every day after practice for about a month. He got worse until it came to the point that he was borderline bad. Finally, I gave up and let him shoot the way he had learned. He became the most valuable player in a tough 10 team district that had teams such as Katy, Columbus, Alief, Friendswood, and Sealy. He ended his career by being the 2nd best player I ever coached.dll
Posted by: Dwayne "Curley" Lenox | December 13, 2010 at 09:34 PM
Great Insight from a great shooter...it seems that lenox family knew how to turn them out. Look for a couple of things with shooters...the ball on the fingertips and a "slow backwards rotation on the ball." Guys who rest the ball in their palm and throw up spinners or knuckleballs may score some...but they are scorers and not pure shooters.
Living in dallas, I seea lot of the Mavs and of course, Dirk Nowitzki. Statistics are many times not the measure of skill but over time they tell the truth about certain things. NBA shooting percentages are often times skewed by the shot clock(late in the clock shots) and for teams better players, the need to force shots sometimes because they are the best option. In Nowitzki's case, he is certainly in the elite class of shooters in the NBa when you consider the number of shots he takes, where they come from from and the need for him to be overly aggressive in crunch time. The 90% free throw stat doesn't lie either.
Here's a question for the people her...Who was the best shooter you ever played against?
Posted by: paul hackett | December 21, 2010 at 01:38 PM
In high school, it would have to be Jimmie Meekins from Deer Park.
In college, it was John Beasley from Texas A&M.
Both are good examples of a pure shooter. Excellent form with a great follow through.
Jimmie was an excellent competitor mixed in with good athletic talent.
John was 6'9", could shoot anywhere on the court and usually had a very good chance of making the shot. Although he tended to whine at times to his teammates about not getting the ball enough, John was still a player that could shoot lights out.
It will be interesting to read about the player other readers select.I hope most will respond.
Posted by: Dwayne "Curley" Lenox | December 21, 2010 at 08:14 PM
Curley, in the three years and six games that you two played against each other in high school, Meekins was not all that good from the field with only 36% but he was deadly from the foul line, missing only two of 28 attempts.
Meekins was the shooting leader when we lost the district opener at Deer Park in Curley's senior year. Perhaps that is what really stands out. He was 7 of 12 from the field and perfect in eight free throw attempts. His 22 points was half of the Deer total in a 44-43 upset that broke our seven year, 79 game district winning streak.
In a Meekins vs. Curley shooting contest, I'll take our guy anytime.
Posted by: Dan Jensen | December 24, 2010 at 10:43 AM
I got the following e-mail comment from Stacy Cole who played at Baylor a little bit after George Carlisle did.
Pure shooters are, at least in part, relatively easy to spot, but some latitude has to be extended to those who do not fit the pattern but still somehow manage to get the results. I have seen an unorthodox shooter or two along the way who could fill it up.
Baylor Lady Bear Emily Niemann was a classic shooter. Use of the legs, balance and squared up shoulders, perfect placement of the ball prior to extension and release, and the absolutely perfect follow through, with the ball rotating perfectly from her finger tips at the end of the extension. Her wrist action was perfect, sufficient without too much movement, and her elbow was in the comfort zone at her side, neither pinched in nor at an angle. The arc of the ball was ideal, and it was a "soft" shot which gave her a "shooter's roll" more often than not, even from afar, but she used exactly the same release and action when shooting in the paint after a fake and/or a spin.
Posted by: Dan Jensen | December 28, 2010 at 02:22 PM
STEVE NASH THE BEST SHOOTER IN NBA HISTORY
Posted by: BVDV | January 28, 2011 at 05:27 PM
Give some support for your Nash statement. Without yelling.
Posted by: Dan Jensen | January 31, 2011 at 09:18 AM
If you go to youtube.com and enter
"Basketball Pure Shooter" my video will come up at the top of the page.
I have been a pure shooter for the past 60 years and it is mind over matter. Watch my video and look at my technique. It is simple.
Posted by: Donald Seidenburg | October 01, 2012 at 07:55 PM