WRISTS - Views from the cheap seats
- Thread starter swest
- Start date
To claim that *all* pro pool players shoot down on the ball? Absolutely nonsense -- count me in on that one.
I'm fortunate in that 1.) I know, 2.) have as personal friends, and 3.) have competed against pro players at the Open 10-ball (SBE), the Open 10-ball of the Predator ProAm tour, the Joss tour, etc. I can probably count on the fingers of one hand where I visibly see a pro "shoot" or cue down on the cue ball for all but those shots that require it (i.e. shooting over a ball, masse, full-cue jump, etc.).
-Sean
Exactly why did you ask if people agreed with you if you only want replies from people that do agree with you?
I was just being a smarta** :grin-square: and making light of what's happened in the other thread (of similar name)...
Everyone can ignore this thread. Or not.
If a discussion about the original post actually breaks out here that's ok. Even if you disagree with it. I'll be happy to discuss it.
swest said:
Cheers.
Pay Up Sucker
Banned
you know swest i am kinda believing that to be true :grin: Your basically asking if we think you can shoot a follow shot with a downward angle of the cue, correct? I would like you to be really specific ok :smile: the other thread has become a disaster now.
Last edited:
Well, my original statement is really a response to the blanket statements made in the other thread like this one (and I quote):
I don't believe that.
Now, with respect to the notion that you can still achieve a following CB even when you shoot down on it, it depends on what the claim is.
If the distance between CB and OB is sufficient, then it doesn't matter much how you strike the CB, it will achieve roll before it gets to the OB and, yes, it will follow.
If you are attempting to impart forward roll immediately on the CB, and you are striking down on the CB, then as long as your tip strikes the CB above the equator of the CB as aligned with your stick (i.e. the equator of the CB tilts to the same angle as your stick), then yes, the CB will have immediate forward roll.
But, if someone is claiming that they somehow impart immediate forward roll on the CB while striking down on it and hitting below its (tilted) equator, then I call BS.
To carry the point a little further though, there is the notion in those claims that there is some underlying reason you would want or need to complicate the shot in this way. I don't understand that at all... Since nearly level cue striking above the CB equator imparts immediate roll, and since this is easy to do and to teach, why would you ever want to complicate it?
That's the part I don't get.
And, by the way, I'm not saying that there is never a reason to strike down on the CB. As sfleinen pointed out above, certainly, there are cases where this is necessary; but to add it where it is unnecessary is about as pointless as was the whole squirt/swerve cancellation train of thought (and don't get me started on that one :smile
Of course its nonsense that everyone does it. But it is a useful technique, EVER TRY IT?
Pay Up Sucker
Banned
ok, i am going to try and shoot some balls tonight and experiment a bit. Have a look at this video, you will like it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC2R84S0kiw&list=UULo0Kbj9BCnIvTPRO6NZvag&index=2&feature=plcp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC2R84S0kiw&list=UULo0Kbj9BCnIvTPRO6NZvag&index=2&feature=plcp
Last edited:
Thanks for that link. I love that guy.
Was there anything in particular I should be watching for?
My son lives in Rapid City, and has seen him around, and even gotten his autograph on a photo for me.
I'm not sure. Because I'm not sure what I would be trying
Seriously...
Give me a specific exercise and my expected results, and I will go out to the table (alas, my table is in the garage) and give it a go.
Are you thinking that Shane is shooting at a downward angle in that clip?
TheThaiger
Banned
I couldn't give a toss WHERE people hit the ball, it's HOW they hit the ball that's important.
Good players hit the ball good - that is all.
Good players hit the ball good - that is all.
That "wrists" thread is a train wreck of nitpicking and namecalling.
However, did someone actually make that bold claim that literally 100% of pro players shoot downward?
You could argue that, in order to clear the rail, everyone in the world shoots with a very slightly angled cue. But it's probably not more than a degree or two and it's strictly out of necessity. Angling beyond that... well, we don't need to start a whole separate argument about it.
I personally would like to see people be less rigid and personal in threads like that. If players are dead set in their belief in something, arguing (especially online) will not change their minds. They believe in it because it works for them, and they use it daily while the other guy doesn't do it at all.
Throwing words at their belief will not change that reality no matter how many words you use, or which ones you pick. If some player has a misconception about physics or biology or the cue or chalk, the best you can do is state your case once, as clearly as possible, and move on. In other words... more "Dr. Dave" style and less "Patrick Johnson" style.
However, did someone actually make that bold claim that literally 100% of pro players shoot downward?
You could argue that, in order to clear the rail, everyone in the world shoots with a very slightly angled cue. But it's probably not more than a degree or two and it's strictly out of necessity. Angling beyond that... well, we don't need to start a whole separate argument about it.
I personally would like to see people be less rigid and personal in threads like that. If players are dead set in their belief in something, arguing (especially online) will not change their minds. They believe in it because it works for them, and they use it daily while the other guy doesn't do it at all.
Throwing words at their belief will not change that reality no matter how many words you use, or which ones you pick. If some player has a misconception about physics or biology or the cue or chalk, the best you can do is state your case once, as clearly as possible, and move on. In other words... more "Dr. Dave" style and less "Patrick Johnson" style.
So, without knowing exactly what I'm going for, I went out and shot for a while and angled down on everything.
I found that the CB leaves the table (I don't mean completely leaves the table) if there is any kind of force to the shot. Applying topspin is somewhat limited because of the angle, and follow is penalized a little because the CB bounces some... The follow that I get is what I would expect given the amount above center that I am shooting.
I haven't seen any surprises yet.
Guidance on what I'm looking for will be appreciated.
I found that the CB leaves the table (I don't mean completely leaves the table) if there is any kind of force to the shot. Applying topspin is somewhat limited because of the angle, and follow is penalized a little because the CB bounces some... The follow that I get is what I would expect given the amount above center that I am shooting.
I haven't seen any surprises yet.
Guidance on what I'm looking for will be appreciated.
Given the height of the rails, the stick is angled down on the majority of shots by everyone. So I can't agree with your statement as it stands. But you probably mean more "down" than just enough to clear the rails.:smile:
Edit -- I just read CreeDo's post a couple above; beat me to it!
Last edited:
Acknowledged that due to the rails, nearly every shot must be shot down on.
And yes, my assumption has been that the original claim means 'more down than just enough to clear the rails'.
Level like this? :grin:
I'm not trying to be argumentative but I must point out that these are still images, and until the stroke is actually taken, and the cue tip touches the CB, we don't actually know how level their cues were for the shots they're preparing to shoot.
We especially see that with Bustamente's stroke. No matter where on the CB he intends to ultimately strike, his warmup strokes always put the tip at the bottom of the CB.