What If Fundamentals Aren't That Important After All?

[bobalouiecda]

Reply to Bob Callahan:

I was a high jumper in the 60's prior to Fosbury and then Stone, and aspired to be ready for the 72 olympics. A knee injury in the military ended my chances and I have always wondered how high I may have jumped with the Fosbury flop. At only 6' 2" my chances were slim but I had an occasional 48" vertical leap and could easily see over a basketball rim. I high jumped many times over 6 feet in street clothes with taking only one step.

Part of my ability was natural and part, like billiards, took much practice.
In both a matter of confidence is essential. This gets back to fundamentals.
If you have an analogy to the moment of impact with the cue ball and the moment of reaching the highest point in the high jump, then work backwards, many possibilities are possible. Fundamentals are important but consistency and confidence are more important. What I have said is that to be consistent it is better to have sound basic fundamentals in the early learning curve. Without good fundamentals you may become very good in an unorthodox way. Almost all will plateau early as do most high jumpers. They reach a height yet unattained and the mind says no.

In billiards if you keep the cue level as possible on most shots and follow through evenly, you are doing better than most. Anything else may some day be improved upon. I doubt it.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... Some good players wiggle the tip in their warm-up strokes. ...

And quite a few top players seem to have goofy pump-handle warm-ups and then an orthodox power stroke.

A agree that pool biomechanics is young. It also suffers from the problem that a good stroke must be not only the right speed but in a near-perfect direction. I'd say that having the right direction all the time can make up for having the wrong speed some of the time. Don't most studies in biomechanics emphasize higher, faster, stronger?

 

[JoeW]

I agree that the biometrics of pool playing is not well understood. It seems to me that learning about the basic issues that need to be addressed by a player is important. When these issues are understood, each player must develop within their own physique and with their particular mental attributes.

It is like learning to write in cursive. There are some very basic issues to be mastered. Some teachers beat it into your head with lined paper for the height of lower case letters and slanted lines for the “proper” angle, etc. Once you get the concepts down writing in cursive is about expressing yourself in your own way, with your strengths and limitations.

I think that the same is true for learning to play pool. Fundamentals are important to know. How you use them depends upon your ability and style. Fortunately many instructors currently teach in this way.

While all that is true, in my thinking, I also think that there are some fundamental issues that are not well understood in today’s pool playing world. I suspect there is much more to know about the importance of the grip, emphasizing the right hand for aiming, and learning how to think through and visualize a pool shot among other topics.

I think there is too much emphasis on theory as related to physics and too little emphasis on real world experiments with regard to what works. I am of the opinions that there are more variables involved in playing pool than some of the strong advocates of a theoretical approach would think. It would be good if the theory based folks would back up there strongly worded statements with real world observations.

I agree with many of the prior posts that it only takes a minor review of the pros in action to learn that fundamentals are not all there is to excellent play.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... I think there is too much emphasis on theory as related to physics and too little emphasis on real world experiments with regard to what works. I am of the opinions that there are more variables involved in playing pool than some of the strong advocates of a theoretical approach would think. It would be good if the theory based folks would back up there strongly worded statements with real world observations. ...

I'm not sure exactly who you are including in this group, but if you could give some specific examples of the sorts of statements you are bothered by, the miscreants might better be able to repent and reform.

 

[Philthepockets]

After some thought it occurred to me that the whole concept of bending over and poking a 2-1/8" ball with a 58" stick towards another 2-1/8" ball to direct it into a 4-1/2" hole and at the same time apply a myriad of variables to the poked ball to achieve some sort of control over it's direction after contact is about as un-natural a thing as I can imagine.
So when someone first starts to play this game, they have no technique no muscle memory and certainly no natural tendencies to the aforementioned exercise.

So why not start out with using these field tested and proven fundamentals to achieve your goal. I don't really buy the "natural ability" I believe it is simply the inner desire to achieve and the mental strength that sets the great players apart. None of them got there without hard work and practice, that is their "natural ability".

Some of the tools they have to be able to compete at a high level are part of their character and instilled at an early age sure, but the ability to improve their technique that comes from repetition is the inner drive and the will to put in the hours.

If they base there technique on the simple mechanical principles they should be able to achieve a higher level of accuracy and consistency on a shorter curve.

The only evidence I have is examples, forgive me if I refer to the other cue sport for reference as it is the one I relate to best.
All orthodox style players (Grip, stance, bridge, sighting, pause, follow through etc)
Most successful player of all time Stephen Hendry his consistency over a ten year period was simply astonishing.
6 Times world champ Steve Davis
3 Times John Higgins
3 Times Ronnie O'Sullivan
Neal Robertson
Previous world Champions
Shawn Murphy
Mark Williams
Graham Dott
Peter Ebdon
*Jimmy White (runner up too many times not to be mentioned )
Terry Griffiths
6 Times Ray Reardon
John Spencer
Dennis Taylor
Joe Davis
Fred Davis
2 Times Alex Higgins (what he did up to the point of contact was pretty standard most of the time, what happened after contact was a little out there)

It could be argued here that it is a cultural thing and as most of these players simply grew up emulating the previous generation of orthodox players that is how they play.
However from a technical point of view I believe that as the distance and size of pockets require a high degree of accuracy this style of play has allowed them to achieve todays high level of skill.

I know that on a smaller table with larger pockets and a different strategy it is possible that more unorthodox techniques may give better results. I have a friend that swears he got more power and spin with the side stroke than he does with the conventional style, however I could cite examples such as Ralph Souqet as he is considered very consistent and with his fairly orthodox technique he has quite the arsenal of shots and the tools to win, obviously no hindrance to Ralph, he can do all the things he needs to do.

 

[Philthepockets]

One other element I forgot to mention is this. There is also an element of strategy involved in all cue sports so the fundamentals of technique may not even come into play if you consider that there are only two things that can happen in a game, "win" or "lose".

 

[JoeW]

I'm not sure exactly who you are including in this group, but if you could give some specific examples of the sorts of statements you are bothered by, the miscreants might better be able to repent and reform.

Oh, just the usual suspects !:wink:

When one of the world's truly great scientists was asked which was more important, theory or application, he answered that we could not have one with out the other for any real progress. I know there are those who disagree but I will side with the Nobel Laureate.

Perhaps I should not have been so selective and could have included mathematicians, engineers, and physicists. All those folks who like to use a few variables in an equation to say that this is the only way it can be. Empiricism goes much further in the resolution of discussions in my thinking. Might even find a few hidden variables.

I learned much from your group's Jacksonville project. There is a need for more work along these lines.

 

[blackeee]

Any discussion of stroke technique always comes back to fundamentals --stance, grip, stroke mechanics etc-- and how important those fundamentals are. I've begun to doubt some of this fundamentalism (heh heh, sorry for the bad pun). It's not that I don't believe that fundamentals are important, all other things being equal. It's just that I'm not sure if all other things are ever equal.

Before you turn your head in disgust, let me make this clear: I'm not suggesting to discard fundamentals. I'm suggesting that perhaps we need a different perspective. Another disclaimer is that this isn't something I've thought through for a long time. It's a bit of a thought-experiment.

First, let me start by acknowledging that there are attributes of the execution of a pool shot that we know for quite sure help the development of pool skills. Things like alignment, stance, proper follow-through and so on. If someone should develop a style where he abruptly stops the cue right after contacting the cue ball, it's pretty much guaranteed that he wouldn't develop a consistent shot, at least up to a point.

But while there are certain such fundamentals, they have quite a tolerance as to how they can be followed. What can be recognized as a good stroke is a pretty wide-ranging concept. Now, the argument can be made that some of the professionals that have non-textbook fundamentals could improve their skill level by fixing those flaws of their stroke, but my argument is not that because there are really good players with questionable fundamentals that fundamentals don't matter.

My argument is that it's quite possible that too much focus on fixing the flaws of your technique might slow down your development. My argument is that there is quite a wide range of techniques that work just fine. In other words, take a player who has a recognizable flaw, though not a big one, in his technique. It might be that "fixing" that particular flaw is not a net win for the player. Of course, the traditional argument goes that you have to focus on fixing the problem only for a while and then it becomes automatic.

However, I think that any type of conscious control over the execution is largely harmful for the learning process. This is pretty much the argument that Timothy Gallwey puts forward in his book The Inner Game of Tennis. The conscious mind only gives goals and targets for the unconscious (or "body" if you will) and lets the unconscious execute it. The unconscious (or the motor cortex to be more exact) figures out how to do it after practice, given a little bit of help to the right direction. This help is basically just a general image/visualization of the shot.

Gallwey's ideas aren't of course against fundamentals, per se, but I feel that the end result of the way Gallwey suggest we should learn might not be that close to what we could consider proper fundamentals. There are some things that you probably can't completely ignore, but the range of good enough techniques is, in my opinion, much wider than most people think. By "good enough" I mean techniques that are obviously somewhat flawed, but that fixing them wouldn't help the player.

Let's take a reasonably good player who has some flaw in his technique. Let's say his hand isn't completely straight on the shooting line. Now, you can logically argue that if his hand was completely straight, he would shoot better. First, it is near impossible to verify this objectively. You could possibly manufacture tests that measure this, but it would take so much time and effort to test this particular feature and you wouldn't still be sure if it's in fact the straightness that makes the difference if there was any.

Second, we don't quite know how exactly our brains do in fact learn to execute shots. We don't know what are all the things in our motor system that promote the best possible consistency. It might be that for a given individual, the optimal technique isn't exactly what we think is the best set of fundamentals.

Now, as I said before, there are things that we know for quite sure are important for the best technique. The optimal stroke probably isn't too "jerky" or otherwise not smooth. You probably can't stand up before you even execute the shot. And so on. Fixing really obvious flaws probably gives high yield for most players. But my claim is that this yield will stop at some point and I think the point isn't at "pretty much perfect fundamentals" but quite far away from that.

As is hopefully clear from the above, I'm not suggesting to throw away fundamentals. My thinking is that through non-judgemental observation and visualization/emulation of known good techniques, you can let your body learn on its own and if with it comes something that could be considered a flaw, don't necessarily regard it as something that you should fix. I believe that through the process that Gallwey suggests as the most efficient learning method, you might come up with a technique that suits you best but has flaws compared to perfect fundamentals. And I think that correcting those flaws might not be in your best interest.

Thoughts, disagreements?

Great post. Keith McCready, Grady and I totally agree.

 

[JoeW]

I'm not sure exactly who you are including in this group, but if you could give some specific examples of the sorts of statements you are bothered by, the miscreants might better be able to repent and reform.

With tongue firmly in cheek, I would have you understand that I do not confront zealots in their many forms. I decline to identify the perpetrators who speak ex-cathedra using the language but not the other tools of science.

Which of Nietzsche's questions of conscience was it?

Do you lead? Do you follow, Do you stand aside and watch?

I am a watcher with a few zingers here and there.

But, I might ask, “ Oh Horatio, where in your Physic for the Ghost Ball and related equations has the functional relationship of the Quiet Eye been introduced?"

 

[Snapshot9]

Fundamentals

They are important. Most players that have flawed mechanics have learned on their own, never bothered to lookup or read about the proper fundamentals to begin with, and have never had a lesson from a good instructor. They implement these flaws into their technique, and end up not knowing any different.

Basic Fundamentals and form were developed by experts and former pros for the easiest and straightest way to deliver a straight true stroke through the ball. Flaws in the Basic Fundamentals, most of the time, cause the player to miss shots. I can usually spot flaws in a player's fundamentals, if he/she has any, and tell you what type of shots they will miss on a regular basis. I can usually tell, from the flaws, whether that player will break down under pressure. There are some exceptions to this, but not very often.

Fundamentals are developed for a good reason. Ever see a quarterback that throws sidearm? In team sports, fundamentals and proper form is greatly emphasized for each player's position on the team. Why? Because it makes the team more productive. And if you are more productive, it increases your chances of winning. Do you think a tennis coach would ever let a student player maintain a flaw in their technique?
I don't, especially a pro tennis player. Do you ever think there has been a major league pitcher that hasn't been changed by a pitching coach since he pitched in High School?

Fundamentals in Pool are not stressed enough, especially for the beginning player. Many young women today are starting to play Pool, having picked it up from a husband or boyfriend, and those husbands or boyfriends may or may not have proper fundamentals to start with.

Flaws in fundamentals are improper form or unnecessary motions that are counter productive to execution and achieving the desired end result.
Most of the time, flaws in technique wil cause a player to fail under pressure. I love these young guys that think the Hully-Gully stroke (up and down stroke pumping action) LOOKS cool, so they do it just to be noticed. Then a couple of years later, after getting beat most of the time, they start to stop doing that and start to adopt a fundamentally correct stroke.

I am pretty big on fundamentals, after all I have prove, in my first $1,000 set, I had a very hard shot on the 9 ball to win the set, and the first thing I thought about was my fundamentals and form, making sure everything was right and straight. I made the 9 and won the set, and I really don't think I would have if I had had bad fundamentals.

I liked the post by the guy who talked about martial arts (which I know something about), and the proper form and levels to achieve. And he is absolutely right, the right fundamentals, when you learn and practice them, will become automatic for you.

 

[mikepage]

I'm not sure exactly who you are including in this group, but if you could give some specific examples of the sorts of statements you are bothered by, the miscreants might better be able to repent and reform.

It's me! Damnit. I know it's me....

 

[JoeW]

It's me! Damnit. I know it's me....

I think you are one of the most often referenced persons on my web site. So there -- take that. There is no better teacher than the one who shows the student how to conduct their own experiments.

 

[predator]

Being fundamentally sound and having a rock solid mental game is the key. To be a complete player, you gotta have both.

But really, steady fundamentals help in pressure situations.
Look at British players. None of them have a killer break, they certainly don't have more experience in pool than rest of the players, yet they dominate Eurotour rankings and have had two or three World champions so far, and even the World team win over the Filipinos. How on Earth is that possible? I'd say they simply shoot a bit straighter than the other guys...there's a tiny but noticeable difference.

 

[dr_dave]

"Classic Fundamentals are an overview sketch, not a detailed blueprint; don't let rigid fundamentalism get in the way of your brain/body's natural ability to learn".

Good summary!

Stroke "best practices" can be taught and people should consider them, especially if they are having consistency problems, but "best practices" are just recommendations, not requirements.

Regards,
Dave

PS to Mike Page: Thanks for the great video describing motivation!

 

[pooltchr]

Generally, there are two types of players who come to me for instruction.
The first are the beginners, and helping them with fundamentals gets them on the right path rather quickly.

The second group are the better players who feel they have hit a wall when it comes to improving their game. Without a doubt, when we do the video analysis, we find issues with the fundamentals that, when addressed, open the door to more improvement.

I'm working with a fairly strong league player right now. He has made some adjustments to his stance and his stroke in the past couple of weeks that have allowed him to see some pretty significant improvement in his game in just a very short period of time.

When I get into a slump, I always get out the video camera and take a close look at my fundamentals. I can almost always find the cause of the problem.

If you don't have a reference point, ie, what is it supposed to be, it's almost impossible to identify problems, and develop solutions.

Fundamentals are the foundation. If there is no stability in the foundation, there is no stability in anything that is built on that foundation.


Steve

 

[JarnoV]

I would like to just thank for the conversation in this thread and apologize for not answering questions. The discussion has been interesting and civil and I appreciate that. I'll try to catch up with the discussion at some point.

 

[elvicash]

good fundamentals help a lot under the heat.

This coming from someone who know heat having been under it and applied it. I vote for good fundamentals if you can get there a coach or instructor will help you do that video yourself if you have to.

 

[stumpie71]

Good fundamentals are very important for someone to reach their peak performance. But as someone pointed out earlier, classic fundamentals are an overreach. All great players have certain similarities, solid balanced stance that allows the "INDIVIDUAL" to see the shot. A tempo that leads to a relax, accurate and repeatable stroke.

 

[1Luckydog]

fundamentals

Any discussion of stroke technique always comes back to fundamentals --stance, grip, stroke mechanics etc-- and how important those fundamentals are. I've begun to doubt some of this fundamentalism (heh heh, sorry for the bad pun). It's not that I don't believe that fundamentals are important, all other things being equal. It's just that I'm not sure if all other things are ever equal.

Before you turn your head in disgust, let me make this clear: I'm not suggesting to discard fundamentals. I'm suggesting that perhaps we need a different perspective. Another disclaimer is that this isn't something I've thought through for a long time. It's a bit of a thought-experiment.

First, let me start by acknowledging that there are attributes of the execution of a pool shot that we know for quite sure help the development of pool skills. Things like alignment, stance, proper follow-through and so on. If someone should develop a style where he abruptly stops the cue right after contacting the cue ball, it's pretty much guaranteed that he wouldn't develop a consistent shot, at least up to a point.

But while there are certain such fundamentals, they have quite a tolerance as to how they can be followed. What can be recognized as a good stroke is a pretty wide-ranging concept. Now, the argument can be made that some of the professionals that have non-textbook fundamentals could improve their skill level by fixing those flaws of their stroke, but my argument is not that because there are really good players with questionable fundamentals that fundamentals don't matter.

My argument is that it's quite possible that too much focus on fixing the flaws of your technique might slow down your development. My argument is that there is quite a wide range of techniques that work just fine. In other words, take a player who has a recognizable flaw, though not a big one, in his technique. It might be that "fixing" that particular flaw is not a net win for the player. Of course, the traditional argument goes that you have to focus on fixing the problem only for a while and then it becomes automatic.

However, I think that any type of conscious control over the execution is largely harmful for the learning process. This is pretty much the argument that Timothy Gallwey puts forward in his book The Inner Game of Tennis. The conscious mind only gives goals and targets for the unconscious (or "body" if you will) and lets the unconscious execute it. The unconscious (or the motor cortex to be more exact) figures out how to do it after practice, given a little bit of help to the right direction. This help is basically just a general image/visualization of the shot.

Gallwey's ideas aren't of course against fundamentals, per se, but I feel that the end result of the way Gallwey suggest we should learn might not be that close to what we could consider proper fundamentals. There are some things that you probably can't completely ignore, but the range of good enough techniques is, in my opinion, much wider than most people think. By "good enough" I mean techniques that are obviously somewhat flawed, but that fixing them wouldn't help the player.

Let's take a reasonably good player who has some flaw in his technique. Let's say his hand isn't completely straight on the shooting line. Now, you can logically argue that if his hand was completely straight, he would shoot better. First, it is near impossible to verify this objectively. You could possibly manufacture tests that measure this, but it would take so much time and effort to test this particular feature and you wouldn't still be sure if it's in fact the straightness that makes the difference if there was any.

Second, we don't quite know how exactly our brains do in fact learn to execute shots. We don't know what are all the things in our motor system that promote the best possible consistency. It might be that for a given individual, the optimal technique isn't exactly what we think is the best set of fundamentals.

Now, as I said before, there are things that we know for quite sure are important for the best technique. The optimal stroke probably isn't too "jerky" or otherwise not smooth. You probably can't stand up before you even execute the shot. And so on. Fixing really obvious flaws probably gives high yield for most players. But my claim is that this yield will stop at some point and I think the point isn't at "pretty much perfect fundamentals" but quite far away from that.

As is hopefully clear from the above, I'm not suggesting to throw away fundamentals. My thinking is that through non-judgemental observation and visualization/emulation of known good techniques, you can let your body learn on its own and if with it comes something that could be considered a flaw, don't necessarily regard it as something that you should fix. I believe that through the process that Gallwey suggests as the most efficient learning method, you might come up with a technique that suits you best but has flaws compared to perfect fundamentals. And I think that correcting those flaws might not be in your best interest.

Thoughts, disagreements?

I really believe you have hit the nail on the head. I have spent years trying to get the text book stroke, and like most I hit a plateau.

I think for new players, yes sure 1000%. aim them in the right direction and send them on their way. Until they plateau.
Within the last year I gave up trying to find that text book rail straight stroke and started learning about MY stroke. Learning what it does at different speeds especially. For me I learned that the harder I shoot the more my cue ball wants to move left to right. Could be cross stroke...unintended english...grip...yada yada yada.
Well anyways my game is improving by alot and quickly.

I would suggest to anyone who wants to improve their ball making.
I say ball making because after all that is our goal right?

After you know the fundamentals and you are stuck in a rut.
Do some half ball shots at different speeds. Be sure to set them up
for cuts left and right. Trust me they will be different especially at high speeds. Pay very close attention to how you are missing. Are you overcutting or undercutting to one side. Once you figure this out take this same approach to jack up stop shots. Side pocket shots off the rail. Maybe 3/4 ball hits. Once you figure out what is going on with these shots
you will be able to trust your stroke and when that happens look out.

 

[LAlouie]

You'll have to excuse some of the pros for not sticking by the book. You see,,,they have this thing called "talent", and tons of it.

You can pick any endeavor and profession you want, and IMO, classically some of THE BEST operate "outside-the-box". Why? Well, assuming my primary requisite which is "TALENT"...talent means that the person sees differently than anyone else. And he breaks down and analyzes problems differently than anyone else. He is able to filter and simplify and attack to his own liking and by his own rules. So for him, the notion of "basics" is a different template than you or I.

For the rest of the common joes, book fundamentals are important because we are very imperfect. How-to books, books on fundamentals, by their very nature are written to speak to many(that's us). Because book fundamantals speak to many, they provide generic solutions that hopefully apply to as many people as possible. The problem of course, is that everyone is diffent, sees differently, are built differently, and thus their motor skills have adapted to their unique dna. So even for the ordinary joes, fundamentals have to be tweaked. Everyone is uniquely talented, and to a greater or lesser extent than others