More elbow dropping nonsense

[Scott Lee]

Russ...So in one post 75% of the information was good, and you didn't like 25%...and in another post it did a LOT of damage to your game. Which is it? You can't have it both ways. BTW, your feelings at the time of the lesson were considerably DIFFERENT (a few years ago) than they are now. Nobody forced you to make any changes in your game. Any changes you made, YOU chose to do, based on a belief that it would help your consistency. Way off base? Nope. That fact that you changed your tune and mind, is certainly your prerogative, but that doesn't make it BS, nor make the instructor guilty of "damaging" your game. Any reputable instructor would think twice about teaching "advanced" concepts to someone who did not already have an accurate, repeatable, and sustainable process.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

I took a lesson from a well known instructor on here and felt that 75% of his info was good, but the 25% that was designed to change my elbow drop was way off base.

I took a lesson with a BCA ceritified instructor. He attempted to get me to remove the elbow drop out of my stroke. It did a lot of damage to my game.

Personally, I think that the BCA program has WAY too much of a cookie cutter approach. I would have been much better served by getting an hour lesson from someone who could work with what I was bringing to the table.

I may joke about my C player status, but I am NO novice. A legitimate C player can benefit from a cookie cutter approach. Once that player reaches strong B status, then it is time for his instructor to teach more advanced concepts.

Russ

 

[Williebetmore]

Spidey,
My last post on the subject. Those "students" who took "a lesson" and were disappointed that they couldn't thrash Efren need a reality check. While a single lesson may be helpful to some, it won't be to all; and to get the full benefit of an instructor's expertise probably requires 8-10 lessons over time with lots of focused, proper practice in between.

There are a LOT OF BAD PLAYERS in my league who drop their elbow, and have been playing that way for 30 or 40 years. Why the heck aren't they as good as the pro's if the elbow drop is so "helpful"????? If you are a beginning or intermediate player, then don't drop your elbow if you want to avoid thousands of extra hours of training on your way to pro level. If you are at least at a low pro level (and I think most posting in this thread are NOT) then don't change your elbow drop - it would require thousands of hours to gain equivalent precision (though you might end up with more precision; but might just give up the game before then). My $.02.

 

[KRJ]

Ummmm, please look at Efren...

Can anyone shoot a killshot without dropping the elbow or letting the cue go?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JM3FLwCrCk
Like Efren does at .35.

Has anyone looked at Efren in this video clip. He has no elbow drop that I could see. Watch him hit the 7 ball, an incredible cut shot that he had to hit hard to avoid the scratch, and the camera is right behind him and his elbow is in perfect view. What a shot, and heck of a pendulum he has going for him. He runs a super tought rack, everyshot he had was a tough one except the 8 and 9. SWEET.... now that is a nice looking stroke !!

 

[KRJ]

Hmmm

Can anyone shoot a killshot without dropping the elbow or letting the cue go?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JM3FLwCrCk
Like Efren does at .35.

Oh, and to answer your above question...

Yes, everday and twice on Sunday.

PS: Efren did not drop his elbow in any shot. His elbow was not viewable on the kill shot, so not sure why you assume he dropped his elbow.

 

[Neil]

.............

 

[dr_dave]

Yes, I did notice that. Since the "other side" wants to stay quiet on it.......but.....but....... he kept getting out of line with that stroke!"

Also, notice that it was a young Efren, when in his prime. Now, he does have more of an elbow drop. Doesn't play quite as good as he used to....hmmm.... could his game have dropped with his elbow????

LOL! :lol: That's the funniest post I've read in a while.

Regards,
Dave

 

[Neil]

.............

 

[JoeyInCali]

Oh, and to answer your above question...

Yes, everday and twice on Sunday.

PS: Efren did not drop his elbow in any shot. His elbow was not viewable on the kill shot, so not sure why you assume he dropped his elbow.

Of course you noticed Efren lets the cue slide.
His tip does not dip after contacting the cueball.
It goes through it.
His elbow look like it dropped at 2:52.

 

[Celtic]

There are a LOT OF BAD PLAYERS in my league who drop their elbow, and have been playing that way for 30 or 40 years. Why the heck aren't they as good as the pro's if the elbow drop is so "helpful"?????

That follows this form.

Affirming the Consequent: draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion by assuming Q implies P on the basis that P implies Q

Argument: If a person runs barefoot, then their feet hurt. Billy's feet hurt. Therefore, Billy ran barefoot.

Argument: If it rains, the ground gets wet. The ground is wet, therefore it rained.

It is a logical fallacy. Your statement in pure logical form is

All professional pool players drop their elbow. People in my league drop their elbow, therefore they should be a professional.

It would be the same as

All apples have seeds. The fruit in my hand has seeds, thus it must be an apple.

It does not in fact have to be an apple, virtually all fruits have seeds.

For further info this is a basic intro into the philosophy of logic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

 

[Ratta]

Ratta...You need look no further than myself or randyg.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

If you think that s a correct/nice way and reason- ok- pm ed you anyway-take care Scott.
______________________________________________________________
back to topic:
Just to state more precisely-depending on my last posting.
The program here in germany also teaches the pendulum stroke(many things based on Briesath)-like BCA/SPF or whoever. And i TRY TO DO also (always). I just wrote this one sentence (that it is hard to find a guy, who s not droppin his ellbow). But for sure that s not my opinion!

If you have an absolute beginner who s takin a course to learn about pool-billiards, you have to teach him the fundamentals. I think here usualy everyone should agree. And beside Stance, Alignment, Bridge etc. etc.the Pendulum Stroke is the most important thing you should try to teach him (my personally opinion and even so my experience). And if you give him so an understanding of the pendulum-stroke he will receive a big knowledge which will help him amazingly (and immediatley imo). The pendulum-stroke is an easy way to receive a straight-stroke-the most important thing in billiards! And further this not something to discuss-this is a fact. In every program you need a *red line through a program* you can always refer to/go back to. And this is for example the pendulum-stroke in our program.
On the other side: If a student comes to me- having trouble with stroke or whatever- i ll let him play patterns/drills for about 1-2 hours- and record it with a cam- then i can analyze it and show him what s wrong. And finally work out somethin for him-
I don t believe that someone could fix something like that in one session..

Just to compare professional players is the wrong way. For me some guys here are just trying to find a reason to get this threas living. Those *pros* spent thousands of hours doing practise-drills etc. to receive a straight-stroke. Unfortunatley not all pros have had a instructor when they begun to play billiards-but they learned about their naturally given anatomical conditions and to work and live with them. NO matter what we re talkin about-is it the anatomical length of their stroke (amazing important-but not often shown up)-and that s mostly the key for a good player (some found it on their own-not really thinkin about it): To know how his stroke works (anatomical length, anatomical end of stroke etc). And how i started before to talk about: to teach a beginner, is on one side a great thing for an instructor, because you can teach him without spending hours of analysis finding out *burned in* errors etc. - you just try to transfer him the theoretical knowledge, so he can understand what he will practise later..and learn!
Many Carom-Billiard players have an advantage- if they join a club- they work right on beginning on their technical abilities and fundamentals. They ran the old-school way through the technical disciplines (free,cadre etc) and so the grow time after time. In pool it is sadly different

And further- for sure i know some players who have absolutley almost perfectly technical abilities, with an amazing pendulum-stroke like in watching a teaching-video. But these (hard to find, still my opinion) ve had the luck to be able to work with qualified instructors.

Steve wrote 3 sentences that would work in this thread here very good imo :grin-square:
Beginners know they need to learn everything
Some Intermediate players often think they don't need to learn anything
Pros understand they can always learn something

The *red line* in a program is important- so you can always work on the basics with the student if he has problems- and from my experience it s almost in all cases a small error in the fundamentals.

At least: i really ask myself why some guys try to attack some instructors here personally including the program. This is just showing me they haven t tried to get a bit understanding of it- or....they know NOTHING about it...or perhaps?!? don t want to accept it to keep this strange thread alive.

lg

Ingo

 

[Cameron Smith]

I think this is a topic that deserves further scientific study, rather than simple conjecture.

The goal of such a study is not to determine which is easier to execute, I don't think that can be argued, but rather which is ultimately more effective. And by that I mean which method produces results with the least amount of effort. A relaxed arm is always going to be more accurate than a strained one. You can't dismiss a technique because it's harder, especially if you can prove there may be advantages. Certainly no proof has been provided that there aren't any.

What I would be interested in seeing is whether or not a properly executed pendulum stroke is decelerating into the cue ball due to shorten follow through on power shots. But not just one players stroke, several of varying body types. The only reason why this wouldn't be the case is if you accelerate your hand into your chest. But one thing I have noticed is that I start to feel some resistence against my bicep before I reach my chest. Surely this must slow my stroke down. So I would assume this must be timed so that this resistence starts after cue ball contact.

But I've seen numerous people execute a P stroke and some of them have a good follow through, others manage very little. So what effect does the length of ones arm have on the effectiveness of this technique?

What about a player who isn't as strong and needs a little extra? Do you help them develop an elbow drop? Or are they just S.O.L.?

Finally, if it could be proved that there is no benefit at all to an elbow drop. Then how can you explain ease with which Ronnie O'Sullivan, Shane Van Boening, Shaun Murphy and Earl Strickland produce so much pace with so little effort? Talent is not an acceptable response, there is a tangible reason for why they can do what they do even if it is difficult to reproduce.

 

[cuetechasaurus]

Has anyone looked at Efren in this video clip. He has no elbow drop that I could see. Watch him hit the 7 ball, an incredible cut shot that he had to hit hard to avoid the scratch, and the camera is right behind him and his elbow is in perfect view. What a shot, and heck of a pendulum he has going for him. He runs a super tought rack, everyshot he had was a tough one except the 8 and 9. SWEET.... now that is a nice looking stroke !!

Efren dropped his elbow on every shot except one. He doesn't drop it much, maybe three or four inches, but it clearly does drop.

 

[Williebetmore]

That follows this form.



It is a logical fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

Celt-man,
Damnit, you made me post again in this stupid thread.

I was trying to point out the "logical fallacy" in the argument that started this ridiculous thread: these guys drop their elbows; these guys are great; therefore dropping their elbows makes them great. At least you picked up on half of the intention.

 

[Russ Chewning]

Celt-man,
Damnit, you made me post again in this stupid thread.

I was trying to point out the "logical fallacy" in the argument that started this ridiculous thread: these guys drop their elbows; these guys are great; therefore dropping their elbows makes them great. At least you picked up on half of the intention.

Actually, this should be reworded as: "99.999999999999% of the great players drop their elbow, so while it is notimpossible to play great without an elbow drop, the elbow drop likely contributes to their greatness.

Much like a basketball player may have the most technically perfect fundamentals, but if he was blinded at birth cuz his momma had some bad creepy crawlies down there, he probably won't be much good.

Basketball player requirements to be great:

Fundamentals
Legs
Eyes
Hands

Pool player requirements to be great:

(Well...I'm sure you get my point. I.e... One can HAVE eyes, and not be a great player, but eyes are pretty much a requirement to be one. A pool player can have a drop elbow stroke and not be a champion, but to BE a champion, it is pretty much a requirement.)

Russ

 

[Neil]

................

 

[JoeW]

Celt-man,
Damnit, you made me post again in this stupid thread.

I was trying to point out the "logical fallacy" in the argument that started this ridiculous thread: these guys drop their elbows; these guys are great; therefore dropping their elbows makes them great. At least you picked up on half of the intention.

I think that you missed the point.

These guys play great.
A great many of these guys drop their elbows.
They were probably not taught to drop their elbows.
Assuming they were not taught to drop their elbows and so many have found it to be useful,
perhaps the elbow drop is related to great shooting.
This deserves further study.

And here we are 38 pages later with ideas but no empirical study. We have many anecdotal reports of the value of elbow dropping and many reasons why it is not needed. Subjective reports and observations of individuals are useful in refining the hypothesis that elbow dropping is beneficial to one's game.

Given the observations of pros and the reports of individuals with strong opinions one way or the other there may be something of substance to pursue.

 

[ShootingArts]

acceleration and speed

http://billiards.colostate.edu/high_speed_videos/new/HSVB-40.htm
(turn on the sound if you have it off)


Neil,

First let me be very clear that I am not talking about your stroke here, I'd very much like to have test equipment hooked up to get some readings off of your stroke. However Bob Jewett and Dr Dave did have equipment hooked up to both of them shooting a pendulum stroke and someone else shooting with both elbow drop and wrist action.

Reviewing the video and pausing over and over it appears that both Dr Dave and Bob Jewett are at perpendicular or just before perpendicular in the "Set" position. Looking at the graphs it is very easy to see that they are no longer accelerating the stick as they hit the cue ball and there is some indication that speed is actually decreasing right before contact if you look at the graphs closely on these two shots. The audio acknowledges that they aren't accelerating into the cue ball too. Dr Dave could probably provide some insight as to what happened on other shots as they surely shot mapped more than these few.

As I mentioned earlier, several years of watching video has convinced me that the vast majority of the pendulum stroke practitioners, and here I mean pendulum until striking the cue ball regardless of a perfect pendulum or a dropped elbow after contact, strike the cue ball well past perpendicular. It is often hard to see where their elbow is when they hit the cue ball but I often see that the forearm is past perpendicular in the "Set" position. This is a strong indication that acceleration has peaked and is near zero at best. I think it is much more likely that the cue is actually decelerating when most pendulum users hit the ball.(to the nit pickers: yes, I know that "decelerating" isn't scientifically correct however it is easily understood by all)

This might be one of the major flaws of the pendulum as most commonly practiced, it is an inefficient stroke. Dropping the elbow does maintain acceleration making the stroke far more efficient in terms of energy expended for the result.

One of the things that can be practiced and I think makes any stroke more effective is a gentle backswing and a slow gathering of speed in the forward stroke so that we are accelerating into the cue ball regardless of which stroke we use. There is a distinct difference in the apparent transfer of energy between some people's strokes and others. We talk of Buddy Hall having a pure stroke because most of the time it seems he barely taps the balls to make them move however he wants them to. Most of us hit them considerably harder to get the same results. Dr Dave and Bob Jewett's instrumentation could tell us why, until somebody runs some similar tests on Buddy Hall we will never know.

One thing worth noting perhaps: when we accelerate into the cue ball the effective mass of the cue stick seems to be greater. Note the lesser deceleration of the cue stick when Dave G hits the cue ball.

It seems the pendulum suffers from one of the same issues as all other strokes. Folks do it many different ways and call all of them "the pendulum". I am a little under the weather and sore due to too much construction going on around here but when I'm feeling a little less gimpy I am going to spend some time on a simplified pendulum letting the tip go where it wants to up and down, if I understand correctly the version of the pendulum you use.

Hu

No, it is not decelerating at impact. It doesn't start to decelerate until after impact. You are right in that you start to feel resistance in the bicep AFTER contact, that starts slowing the arm down, and is what prevents slamming into the chest. Your contact on the cb is easy to time. Just set your tip very near the cb when your forearm is 90 deg. to the cue. At that point, you have peak acceleration at contact.

The length of the followthrough has nothing to do with the shot. The shot is already done. It does not matter if your followthrough goes the same direction as the cb, or if it goes up towards your chest. Both ways shoot THROUGH the cb, and that is what is important. You don't want to stop right at contact. Although, if you could do it without decelerating before contact, that wouldn't matter either. For proof of that, just look at a specialty shot where you have your hand hit the table to stop your followthrough. You have zero followthrough, but can do anything with the cb.

 

[dr_dave]

Thanks, I aim to please. (pun intended, oops, wrong thread:embarrassed2

I aim to squerve, and I don't care what happens to the elbow after the CB is gone.

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

What I would be interested in seeing is whether or not a properly executed pendulum stroke is decelerating into the cue ball due to shorten follow through on power shots. But not just one players stroke, several of varying body types. The only reason why this wouldn't be the case is if you accelerate your hand into your chest. But one thing I have noticed is that I start to feel some resistence against my bicep before I reach my chest. Surely this must slow my stroke down. So I would assume this must be timed so that this resistence starts after cue ball contact.

See:

HSV B.40 - stroke speed and acceleration analysis, with Bob Jewett​

Most pendulum strokers reach maximum speed just before CB contact. This makes it easier to control the speed of a shot, because the speed isn't changing much into the ball. The cue slows down dramatically when it hits the CB. The resistance you mentioned occurs during the follow-through, after the CB is gone.

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

... here we are 38 pages later with ideas but no empirical study. We have many anecdotal reports of the value of elbow dropping and many reasons why it is not needed. Subjective reports and observations of individuals are useful in refining the hypothesis that elbow dropping is beneficial to one's game. ...

FYI, I had done a physics-based study a while back. Here's a quote from my results:

With typical pendulum (p) strokes, the speed is more constant (i.e., leveled-off) at CB impact, possibly making it easier to control shot speed, because the speed is less sensitive to variations in bridge and stroke length. With typical "accelerate into the ball" (a) strokes, the force increases and levels off during the stroke, and force is being applied all of the way up to ball impact. With a classic pendulum stroke, it is natural to coast into the ball with no force at impact. The peak force is typically lower with an "accelerate into the ball" stroke than with a pendulum stroke (for the same shot speed) because force is applied over a larger distance. Therefore, for some people, this type of stroke might seem to require less effort for a given speed, and higher speeds might be possible. A typical "accelerate into the ball" stroke usually involves more of a "piston-like" stroke, with shoulder motion and elbow drop, allowing some people to generate force more easily throughout the stroke. One disadvantage of a piston stroke is that tip-contact-point accuracy might be more difficult to control.​

For more info, see:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/stroke.html#acceleration​

Regards,
Dave