Buddy Hall talks "Deflection"

[Matt_24]

Accu-stats just posted a match of Grady Mathews playing Roger Griffith some 10 ball. Roger was a young monster, but people forget how good Grady played.

Grady was having some doggish spots though, and Buddy kept saying that the deflection was getting him. He wouldn't let that point go throughout the match. He said, "Grady loves that european taper, and it's too stiff and deflects more." When Grady started playing better Buddy said, see he's playing more center ball now. As we know, Buddy loved a Meucci "pro taper" (and sure did play good with it).

At the end, Grady won and they did an interview. Buddy's first question was, "Was the deflection getting you?". Grady said, "No, but I couldn't figure out the speed." LOL

 

[BasementDweller]

Accu-stats just posted a match of Grady Mathews playing Roger Griffith some 10 ball. Roger was a young monster, but people forget how good Grady played.

Grady was having some doggish spots though, and Buddy kept saying that the deflection was getting him. He wouldn't let that point go throughout the match. He said, "Grady loves that european taper, and it's too stiff and deflects more." When Grady started playing better Buddy said, see he's playing more center ball now. As we know, Buddy loved a Meucci "pro taper" (and sure did play good with it).

At the end, Grady won and they did an interview. Buddy's first question was, "Was the deflection getting you?". Grady said, "No, but I couldn't figure out the speed." LOL

I love watching and listening to the old matches, but they were all over the place on the science stuff. In fairness, most of them had a working knowledge of what was going on. They must have intuitively understood the game to play it at such a high level. I think they just got their variables mixed up at times. Heck, Jeremy Jones does the same thing today while being quite authoritative in the process.

 

[maha]

center line of the cue ball is just flat out more accurate and a good reason needs to be there not to use it.

 

[JPB2]

I love watching and listening to the old matches, but they were all over the place on the science stuff. In fairness, most of them had a working knowledge of what was going on. They must have intuitively understood the game to play it at such a high level. I think they just got their variables mixed up at times. Heck, Jeremy Jones does the same thing today while being quite authoritative in the process.

Yes. I remember a Buddy Hall video where he explained how the cue ball would react and where it would go with follow at an angle. You can also see the principle explained in Dr Dave’s book or other places. Dr Dave explains the cueball travels down the tangent line first etc…. Buddy Hall said the cueball has “whippin action”. Hall knew exactly what the cueball would do and could demonstrate it perfectly. The explanation was not as clear as other explanations perhaps.

 

[Bob Jewett]

I love watching and listening to the old matches, but they were all over the place on the science stuff. In fairness, most of them had a working knowledge of what was going on. ...

For deflection/squirt, there was no good theory until about 2000. By good, I mean able to make useful predictions and explanations of the underlying mechanics. People, including me, were just guessing.

Deflection and back-hand compensation were known before 1840.

 

[maha]

yea, back in the 1840's when playjng, we all used back hand english.

 

[garczar]

when i started we all knew that off center strikes caused deflection and you just learned to adjust for it. Grady did miss a couple when the cb squirted too much on him. Buddy knew exactly what he was talking about.

 

[jasonlaus]

yea, back in the 1840's when playjng, we all used back hand english.

What about front hand?

 

[maha]

back just worked better and was more natural. not moving your bridge hand seemed better. and just took a normal stroke.

i guess its up to choose.

 

[InsertCleverNameHere]

Buddy knew exactly what he was talking about.

AT ALL TIMES. And don't you forget it.

 

[Bob Jewett]

AT ALL TIMES. And don't you forget it.

I was the TD for a pro event in 1980. Buddy was the smartest player there.

 

[hang-the-9]

For deflection/squirt, there was no good theory until about 2000. By good, I mean able to make useful predictions and explanations of the underlying mechanics. People, including me, were just guessing.

Deflection and back-hand compensation were known before 1840.

Several things were not really looked at for a technological view. The break is another one, I know many very good players took the break as luck, not a factor of how well the rack was setup or where you hit the ball. And the 9 ball going in off the break was not very well looked at by anyone to try to stop it. In fact the Miz would say in commentary if the 9 ball did not move it meant the rack was loose, where now we know it's the opposite.

 

[middleofnowhere]

A bit off the original subject, I haven't watched a whole lot of this video yet but it's a little surprising how poor their safety play is. They would not like playing one of today's players.

 

[JPB2]

A bit off the original subject, I haven't watched a whole lot of this video yet but it's a little surprising how poor their safety play is. They would not like playing one of today's players.

Today’s players didn’t grow up with push out rules either. But yes, kicking and safety play is much better now.

 

[Matt_24]

A bit off the original subject, I haven't watched a whole lot of this video yet but it's a little surprising how poor their safety play is. They would not like playing one of today's players.

Profound.

 

[garczar]

A bit off the original subject, I haven't watched a whole lot of this video yet but it's a little surprising how poor their safety play is. They would not like playing one of today's players.

You can't compare different eras. If any of the top 70's/80's/90's players grew up in today's game they'd be just as good in all aspects. I started in '79 and 9ball was a SHOOTING game played with 2shot/rollout rules. People didn't duck near as much. The widespread adoption of 1foul changed all that.

 

[GideonF]

A bit off the original subject, I haven't watched a whole lot of this video yet but it's a little surprising how poor their safety play is. They would not like playing one of today's players.

Parica then Efren really changed the way people played safe. Their kicking skills developed from playing Filipino rotation and carom was just not commonly available to most of the good players at the time (with some exceptions like Varner).

But it didn’t stop there. I remember watching a YouTube video of Appleton explaining that he had to relearn his safety game in light of the increased kicking and jumping skills. My recollection is he said when he started in the game, the smart play was to play a safe that gave you a 100% chance of leaving a blocking ball, even if the safe wasn’t air tight, but now he has to play for the air tight safety even if it means he sells out from time to time, because the simpem bare ball safety is going to hurt you (because the top players of today with jump it in or play a better return safety.