Tim5000 said:
RIGHT!! And as is there for all to see, Landon not only did NOT have a level or nearly level cue on ANY of his draw shots...he made NO ATTEMPT to have it "as level as possible" because on the short draws played over the rail, his cue never touched the rails and therefore, the cue was not as level as it could have been.
But the REAL proof of the pudding was the last shot in the series where the rail was no factor. In that shot he COULD have achieved an actually level cue and not just "as level as possible" but instead, when drawing for a considerably longer distance than the first few shots, he actually jacked his cue WAY above level and got essentially a full table draw...thank you very much...with an almost effortless stroke.
I am personally much more interested in scientific studies on such topics as this.
But like all the others posting here, all I can go on is what works for me and pass that on as grist for the mill...instead of suggesting that what works for me MUST be correct and will work for everyone else.
JUST NOW, I went to my table (with newish 860) and set up the following shot.
1. OB at center table...1 diamond off the left rail.
2. CB at the 1st diamond off the head rail positioned for a straight in shot.
So, I had 2 full diamonds of separation between CB and OB. Then I executed the shot with as level a cue as possible i.e. with the shaft in constant touch with the head rail...but it was not dead level due to the necessity of cueing over the head rail.
I shot a HARD draw...but not a monster mash stroke and got 6 1/2 diamonds of draw...i.e. back to the head rail and forward 2 1/2 diamonds.
Then I executed the same shot with the cue a good 1/2 inch above the rail...clearly not as level as possible...and got...6 1/2 diamonds of draw.
Then I elevated my bridge fingers to a near vertical position almost (but not quite) as though jacked up over a ball...but CERTAINLY higher than I would ever attempt unless it was necessary...and got....6 1/4 diamonds of draw. I write off that difference to the impossibility of a human being shooting at exactly the same pace and making exactly the same tip contact with the CB...so, within that margin of error, the outcomes were not meaningfully different.
C'mon Scott...chime in here. During our recent lesson you commented specifically that I had "a sporty draw stroke" right??? (-:
Just because I am unaware of scientific experiments on this subject doesn't mean that they don't exist but I have not seen one.
But my sort of "pet peave" on this subject is the FACT that the supposedly ideal level cue RARELY is permitted on a pool table due to the existence of the rails.
SEE FOR YOURSELF...the CB must be nearly 4 diamonds away from a rail before the cue can be oriented dead level and a small percentage of shots in pool are struck with the CB that far off a rail.
So...my point is...why advocate a not impossible but RARE situation instead of teaching the FACT that most draw shots MUST of necessity, be struck with at least a slightly elevated cue.
I agree that "slightly elevated" is a synonym for "as level as possible" but the former term more accurately conforms to the real world and does not set "level" which can only be rarely achieved, as the ultimate goal.
Rather, "slightly elevated" is the ultimate goal because it is the most likely possible orientation and therefore should be taught as such IMHO.
Finally, we have all seen the video of Cory's "draw shot heard 'round the world" which many have suggested was one of the most powerful draw shots ever struck in competition and WATCH IT AGAIN!
His cue was meaningfully elevated!
I mean absolutely no disrespect to anyone posting in this thread and again, I fully admit that what works for me might not work for any other living human. But on the other hand, I own hundreds of championship match videos dating back to the 1960s through today...and watch every single pro match that is televised so I know for a FACT that A) the vast majority of draw shots are executed with a somewhat elevated cue and B) MANY, MANY pros quite obviously make NO ATTEMPT whatsoever, to orient their cues "as level as possible" as can clearly be seen by simply watching the match videos.
Therefore, IMHO the "normal" draw shot is stroked with a slightly elevated cue...because the conforming definition of "normal" in this case is "a wide spread or usual practice" and nothing is more wide spread than shooting draw shots with a slightly elevated cue...because mostly, we have no choice.
Having said all that, I would be GREATLY interested in being pointed to any scientific study that shows that "exactly level" is fundamentally superior to any other cue orientation for a draw shot.
That won't change my or anyone else's ACTUAL draw stroke because we can rarely achieve level if we wanted to but I think the science would be interesting to read.
Regards,
Jim
. But if I answered all my questions by actually trying it out on the pool table, what would we talk about?
