I've seen guys 6'2" and above spread those legs (don't laugh
) in order to get down in a position that they can cleary see the shot way beyond a foot.
From Willie Joseph Mosconi himself:
- Thread starter JoeyA
- Start date
I've seen guys 6'2" and above spread those legs (don't laugh
) in order to get down in a position that they can cleary see the shot way beyond a foot.
They were friends, just like Joey Mosconi and Jay Greenleaf!
Always Pal!
I think he suggested this for 2 reasons. First, I think it has a big impact on how a cue hits. 2nd, it feels good to hold the weight of the cue in the back hand and have less weight on the bridge, but then breaking feels better with more weight on the bridge hand. This is all feel, so we don't have to agree.
It took me a long time to figure it out, but what I think Willie was advocating (but did not spell out) was that you need a consistent place to start your grip from and the four inches behind the balance point was your consistent starting point that you then adjusted back as the shot dictated.
Lou Figueroa
A couple of things here: Willie was a bit short and his cue was shorter than the modern era cue. His game was 14.1, and his style of play kept the cue ball in the center of the table. IOW, he wasn't shooting a lot of shots to the bottom two pockets needing to lean out over the end rail. He preferred to keep the CB in the bottom half of the table and would shoot balls into the sides and up table pockets with abandon. So he was rarely leaning out over the table, as you might playing 9ball. Once he got the balls open, he kept the CB where he could comfortably stand and say run a 100 or two.
And I've seen that photo you're talking about and he looks like a total killer sighting over the ball
Lou Figueroa
I saw him shoot several times and I don't believe Mosconi had a slip stroke.
Lou Figueroa
From Willie M.
Remember, back then,1950's through 60's, cues were 57" long, not the 58 1/2" standard of now (and the butt grip area (both width of the cue in the butt area and the wrap length) was considerably larger than now! that said, the balance point WOULD be only 4", not the longer balance point now.
Remember, back then,1950's through 60's, cues were 57" long, not the 58 1/2" standard of now (and the butt grip area (both width of the cue in the butt area and the wrap length) was considerably larger than now! that said, the balance point WOULD be only 4", not the longer balance point now.
I was looking at some of the photos of Willie and was paying attention to his grip and I could almost swear that he holds the cue primarily with the ring finger, rather than the index finger or middle finger. The pinky finger does not cradle the cue at all and the thumb is down.
The photo I am referring to is on page 36 if anyone has the book. The pinky appears pointing down and the ring finger is in a different position than the middle finger and index finger. The ring finger in these two photos seems to cradle the cue while the rest of the fingers do not.
Some of the other photos look like they were posing photos so I didn't pay much attention to them.
Does anyone on AZB play using the ring finger as the main force of the grip?
The photo I am referring to is on page 36 if anyone has the book. The pinky appears pointing down and the ring finger is in a different position than the middle finger and index finger. The ring finger in these two photos seems to cradle the cue while the rest of the fingers do not.
Some of the other photos look like they were posing photos so I didn't pay much attention to them.
Does anyone on AZB play using the ring finger as the main force of the grip?
JA,
I believe that Mark is on record as saying it will be out in 2003....he's a little late (I think he has been working on it for 16 years now)...he found quite a bit more to include since then. Hopefully by the end of 2011 we'll see it. It will certainly be one of a kind. It will contain the essence of his method (gleaned in large part from Jerry Briesath's methods); it is certain that he has worked with far more beginning, intermediate, advanced, and professional players than Willie (who was not known as a teacher, and jealously guarded any of his advanced techniques).
As much as I respect Mark, in a straight pool match with Willie he would not be the favorite (though he is a great straight pool player)...but that is not how I judge an instructor.
Another thing that many on this forum (Lou in particular) misunderstand; is that Mark does not in ANY way consider his method the "only" way to become proficient. Far from it. Almost all great players got that way with unorthodox technique; and it CAN be done. But he has seen countless students fail that way, and knows that with orthodox technique anyone can get to a pro level of play, IF they have the desire and dedication. With unorthodox technique, most fail even with desire and dedication. It is a damn hard game, so he has no interest in promoting unorthodox technique - way too many failures. At least with orthodox technique you can get good if you want it badly enough - and for the good of the game that is all Mark will promote or teach - he will be the first to tell you that he is not the instructor for you if you want to hang on to unorthodox habits.
Last edited:
I disagree with a recurring statement in this and similar threads:
Statement: A vertical stance was used by the old timers because the main game was straight pool, where there is little cue ball movement when played correctly.
Rebuttal 1: Any of those old timers could do absolutely anything they wanted with the cue ball, at any time, while in their vertical stance. (Talking about pro players here of course, not bangers).
Rebuttal 2: Many current top 3c players have a much more vertical stance than current top pool players. Of course, they move the cueball more than 9 ball players by a mile.
My contention is that the stance changes over the years are just due to changing trends, and are NOT tied to one stance being better for one game than another.
Statement: A vertical stance was used by the old timers because the main game was straight pool, where there is little cue ball movement when played correctly.
Rebuttal 1: Any of those old timers could do absolutely anything they wanted with the cue ball, at any time, while in their vertical stance. (Talking about pro players here of course, not bangers).
Rebuttal 2: Many current top 3c players have a much more vertical stance than current top pool players. Of course, they move the cueball more than 9 ball players by a mile.
My contention is that the stance changes over the years are just due to changing trends, and are NOT tied to one stance being better for one game than another.
Not to be a nit picker, but you are rationalizing here. Willie, in fact, did
hold the cue that far forward, Lassiter held it even farther forward.
Keep in mind, Willie had his forearm perpendicular at the end of his
BACKSTROKE, not at point of contact.
Dale<who saw him shoot a few>
100% correct. Not even close to slip stroke.
Dale<did I mention I saw him in person?>
Good info, but Willie was roughly a decade retired from any kind of
competitive or even serious play when that book was published.
My HUMBLE suggestion, if you want a better veiw of how he actually
stood and aimed, etc, get the "little red book" from the 1940s -
his absolute heyday.
Dale
I've tried it and it works great for ensuring you don't steer or tighten your grip during the follow through. But it was tough to get use to so I reverted back to a index and ring finger grip.
If you want a case study, check out Alex Higgins. He kept his index finger off to cue, almost like he was pointing down.
As for a Willie Mosconi case study, here's his match against Fats if anyone is interested.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3109100860459966589#
On another note, I don't think Willie was intentionally misleading players at at all. I think if you look at most sports intructional materials going back far enough, you'll see glaring omissions of knowledge and playing suggestions that might seem comical. Take Boxing for example, look at videos of Jack Johnson and compare his technique against modern day fighters.
In English Billiards they taught players to stand COMPLETELY upright during the mid 19th century (as in no bending at all). It wasn't until the early 1920's that it was common players to keep their chin on the cue.
In English Billiards they taught players to stand COMPLETELY upright during the mid 19th century (as in no bending at all). It wasn't until the early 1920's that it was common players to keep their chin on the cue.
Well, all I can say in my defense is that I've watched Mark give many, many lessons at C&C on the back table there. I have also seen at least a dozen recent graduates of his, post-instruction, at different pool rooms around the area, and they all come out looking the same way: standing at the table looking like Mark. You can pick them out from across the room because it is a very distinctive look.
Mark is a great guy and wonderful instructor, but from what I have seen here in St. Louis over the last decade or so, it does appear to me that he tries to make most of his students stand and stroke the same -- like him. That's just what I've seen with my own two peepers.
Lou Figueroa
I'm not sure what you're arguing here. But first off I think you need to throw out the 3C argument (I don't think snooker would be germane either). So that leaves #1, which I agree with, but still doesn't matter because at 14.1, once a good player gets a hold of the balls they're leaving themselves shots they can easily reach. I think there might also be an issue with how the pros dressed back in the day, in suits and tuxes, and how it's easier to be more upright in that kind of rig, and that people that watched them tend to emulate the best players.
Lou Figueroa
Last edited:
Yes, I saw him several times too. And for most shots he did hold the cue way up short with his forearm pointing forward. But as needed he'd smoothly adjust back when he had to lean out a bit over the table, or was jacked up over a ball, or needed more power.
Lou Figueroa