Straightpool_99 -- Although I disagreed a little with bits and pieces of your opening post, the overall theme I very much agreed with. The pool world has been on a very slow march for years towards adopting some basic fundamentals. This is a good thing I think but I have issues with some of these fundamentals that have been adopted and along this long march a few of the catch phrases that have caught on really drive me nuts.
The "cue ball doesn't care what happens after contact" phrase has become a favorite line of many on here whenever discussions about stroking mechanics take place. I think the phrase serves a great purpose when discussing the science of the cue tip to cue ball collision but when conversations are more focused on the totality of a player's stroke and someone chimes in and explains how the cue ball doesn't care what happens after contact it becomes a very misunderstood phrase to many readers. I concern myself with the totality of the stroke in my own game and I really think most good players and instructors do as well, so why this phrase is always thrown into the conversation is puzzling to me.
Oh well....moving on to fundamentals....
I think what has happened here in the U.S. and more specifically right here on AZ Billiards is most instruction has been greatly influenced by the teachings of Jerry Briesath. I think this is where the fixed elbow teaching derives from, or at least he drove its popularity. Many of the top instructors on this Forum have sort of branched out from the Briesath tree. I think this would even include Mark Wilson (who doesn't post here but is often mentioned).
My honest critique of these instructors is I think they latched on to some teaching methods out of necessity and they have just stuck with them through thick and thin.
Looking more specifically at Mark Wilson, in his recent book on one page he sings the praises of Steve Davis and Allison Fisher and how great their technique is and then on another page he just all out dismisses snooker fundamentals for pool for some reason that escapes me at the moment (may have been because of a clearance issue or some similar reason). I really had a hard time digesting that book after reading how quickly he dismissed snooker fundamentals all the while singing the praises of the players that utilize them. Many of the techniques discussed in his book just came across as arbitrary to me and that's kind of the same feel I get for much of the instructional stuff I read on here.
Another example -- going back to the fixed elbow concept is the idea that the simplest method is the best method. I look at the sports world and I just don't see this concept playing out. Pitching mechanics aren't simple. If they were everybody would toss the ball 10 mph underhand. Swinging a gold club is not simple; otherwise the only club players would use would be a putter. Shooting a jump shot is not simple -- why jump at all? Preaching the benefits of having the fewest possible moving parts sounds good on paper but upon closer inspection I don't see this concept playing out in the sports world.
I could go on forever on this subject but my point is that we are moving slowly towards coming to a consensus on some basic fundamentals after living in an anything goes world but I'm not willing to except all of these proposed fundamentals just because they sound good. I think the proof is found on the table and as of right now I’m not seeing the proof.
The "cue ball doesn't care what happens after contact" phrase has become a favorite line of many on here whenever discussions about stroking mechanics take place. I think the phrase serves a great purpose when discussing the science of the cue tip to cue ball collision but when conversations are more focused on the totality of a player's stroke and someone chimes in and explains how the cue ball doesn't care what happens after contact it becomes a very misunderstood phrase to many readers. I concern myself with the totality of the stroke in my own game and I really think most good players and instructors do as well, so why this phrase is always thrown into the conversation is puzzling to me.
Oh well....moving on to fundamentals....
I think what has happened here in the U.S. and more specifically right here on AZ Billiards is most instruction has been greatly influenced by the teachings of Jerry Briesath. I think this is where the fixed elbow teaching derives from, or at least he drove its popularity. Many of the top instructors on this Forum have sort of branched out from the Briesath tree. I think this would even include Mark Wilson (who doesn't post here but is often mentioned).
My honest critique of these instructors is I think they latched on to some teaching methods out of necessity and they have just stuck with them through thick and thin.
Looking more specifically at Mark Wilson, in his recent book on one page he sings the praises of Steve Davis and Allison Fisher and how great their technique is and then on another page he just all out dismisses snooker fundamentals for pool for some reason that escapes me at the moment (may have been because of a clearance issue or some similar reason). I really had a hard time digesting that book after reading how quickly he dismissed snooker fundamentals all the while singing the praises of the players that utilize them. Many of the techniques discussed in his book just came across as arbitrary to me and that's kind of the same feel I get for much of the instructional stuff I read on here.
Another example -- going back to the fixed elbow concept is the idea that the simplest method is the best method. I look at the sports world and I just don't see this concept playing out. Pitching mechanics aren't simple. If they were everybody would toss the ball 10 mph underhand. Swinging a gold club is not simple; otherwise the only club players would use would be a putter. Shooting a jump shot is not simple -- why jump at all? Preaching the benefits of having the fewest possible moving parts sounds good on paper but upon closer inspection I don't see this concept playing out in the sports world.
I could go on forever on this subject but my point is that we are moving slowly towards coming to a consensus on some basic fundamentals after living in an anything goes world but I'm not willing to except all of these proposed fundamentals just because they sound good. I think the proof is found on the table and as of right now I’m not seeing the proof.
