textbook fundamentals and being solid at the table. give me the latter any day.
am i even making sense?
disagree?
am i even making sense?
disagree?
The difference between...
- Thread starter PhilosopherKing
- Start date
Being solid, as you say, at the table, comes from (good) textbook fundamentals.
Why don't you capitalize the beginning of your sentences?
Why don't you capitalize the beginning of your sentences?
Being solid, as you say, at the table, comes from (good) textbook fundamentals.
Why don't you capitalize the beginning of your sentences?
I've seen a lot of good players with quirky fundamentals, but just to look at them, you know they're solid. Hard to describe. That's why I bring it up.
Better?
Payback for having had to learn four versions of each letter from the nuns.
Last edited:
I'd have to go with Tramp here. Though a person may never have understood or even been a student of fundamentals does not mean they do not have good fundamentals - it doesn't even have to look like they have good fundamentals.
There are world-class players out there that look like a shambling mound of disorganized amphibious excrement, but upon closer inspection, they have all the basics covered and they do what is needed so well that it is like its second nature... even to the point that they can actually make something very complex and demanding of accuracy look like they have no clue what they are doing. Lou Butera is one that comes to mind. Master of knowing what will transpire prior to even moving to the table for a shot. Keith McCready ofcourse... taught me about the right hand (thanks Keith), absolutely deadly and deceptive.
Regards,
Lesh
There are world-class players out there that look like a shambling mound of disorganized amphibious excrement, but upon closer inspection, they have all the basics covered and they do what is needed so well that it is like its second nature... even to the point that they can actually make something very complex and demanding of accuracy look like they have no clue what they are doing. Lou Butera is one that comes to mind. Master of knowing what will transpire prior to even moving to the table for a shot. Keith McCready ofcourse... taught me about the right hand (thanks Keith), absolutely deadly and deceptive.
Regards,
Lesh
Last edited:
Well put.
What a person may perceive as poor fundamentals from a player may simply be his interpretation of them. We ofttimes say: "That guy's got a homemade stroke."
Well put.
What a person may perceive as poor fundamentals from a player may simply be his interpretation of them. We ofttimes say: "That guy's got a homemade stroke."
But when someone shoots well with a "homemade" stroke everyone jumps on the need lessons wagon!
Tell me, when's the last time a player with "quirky fundamentals" won a major title?
Every great player has great fundamentals, and great fundamentals are simply defined as having the ability to consistently hit the cue ball where intended.
If you can do that, then it doesn't matter if you drop or don't drop your elbow, if your wrist hangs in or out, if your chin is on or off the cue, etc.
Don't confuse style with fundamentals. Although some players may not be as aesthetic as others they still do the meat-n-potato parts correctly. Perfect example is Allen Hopkins. VERY fundamentally sound but quite odd in appearance. Same thing happens in golf: you've got your RangerRicks and your players. Lanny Wadkins would be the AllenHopkins of golf, sound but quirky style.
Watch the cue ball...,
Allen Hopkins, Tommy Kennedy, Keith, Busty, Mike Davis, Luat, Moore and the list goes on and on. Hit the cue ball where your trying to and the object ball where your trying to and your results will look pretty good.
Have a Pro that can teach, watch you and he will more than likely go over some of the things that he was taught or learned about striking the ball and how you can use them.
"Your" fundamentals will improve.
Allen Hopkins, Tommy Kennedy, Keith, Busty, Mike Davis, Luat, Moore and the list goes on and on. Hit the cue ball where your trying to and the object ball where your trying to and your results will look pretty good.
Have a Pro that can teach, watch you and he will more than likely go over some of the things that he was taught or learned about striking the ball and how you can use them.
"Your" fundamentals will improve.
I think my use of the word "textbook" is causing confusion.
There are are a lot of different strokes for different folks, but when you see a certain look in a player's eyes and when he gets down on the shot in a certain way, you know right away what's coming next.
Without a specific confidence, focus, and intensity, textbook fundamentals seem to amount to just doing the chicken dance.
So, chicken or the egg?
There are are a lot of different strokes for different folks, but when you see a certain look in a player's eyes and when he gets down on the shot in a certain way, you know right away what's coming next.
Without a specific confidence, focus, and intensity, textbook fundamentals seem to amount to just doing the chicken dance.
So, chicken or the egg?
Last edited:
What ARE you asking? Are good players confident? Do they have heart? Pretty obvious, isn't it? ALL good players have: A. A skill set and B. A belief set/system. Can't really separate the two.
what's more important? what comes first?
Fundamentals. Textbook or unorthodox doesn't really matter.
I guess you'd have to say belief/heart because when you first start you suck, right? The reason anybody gets better(AT ANYTHING) is repetition/practice and the confidence that he/she will prevail. Big heart/big belief will beat pretty-boy stroke artists EVERY time. Technique matters but only if combined with a belief set/system.
Last edited:
