Can't we all just get along?

[BeiberLvr]

We argue a lot on these forums about fundamentals. Not pointing fingers, because I know I'm just as guilty as the next person.

I just received my copy of Snooker Masterclass by Stephen Hendry from Amazon, and wanted to share a quick little quote from the book. I think it really brings together both sides, the ones in favor of a more textbook approach, and their opposition.

"There are no inflexible rules governing bridge, stance, and grip, but a player must work within a framework of orthodoxy to determine what is best and most effective for him."

 

[Donny Lutz]

Yes!

We argue a lot on these forums about fundamentals. Not pointing fingers, because I know I'm just as guilty as the next person.

I just received my copy of Snooker Masterclass by Stephen Hendry from Amazon, and wanted to share a quick little quote from the book. I think it really brings together both sides, the ones in favor of a more textbook approach, and their opposition.

"There are no inflexible rules governing bridge, stance, and grip, but a player must work within a framework of orthodoxy to determine what is best and most effective for him."

Well said. Of course, you must remember that there are some folks whose views are infallible...

 

[FranCrimi]

I don't understand what the quote means. Can someone please explain?

 

[336Robin]

Get Along

We argue a lot on these forums about fundamentals. Not pointing fingers, because I know I'm just as guilty as the next person.

I just received my copy of Snooker Masterclass by Stephen Hendry from Amazon, and wanted to share a quick little quote from the book. I think it really brings together both sides, the ones in favor of a more textbook approach, and their opposition.

"There are no inflexible rules governing bridge, stance, and grip, but a player must work within a framework of orthodoxy to determine what is best and most effective for him."

BeiberLvr,

I think the disagreement boils down to agenda more so than anything. There have been a few things that I've disagreed with along the way, then much later on I've considered the other side of the coin and I get why the opposing view exists and can agree on it part ways but one thing is for sure in pool....Nothing is perfect.

 

[BeiberLvr]

I don't understand what the quote means. Can someone please explain?

I'll explain how I interpreted what he was saying, and I'll use the notorious elbow drop since that's always a heated topic

There are no stern rules that say you can't drop your elbow, but if you're going to do so, then do it in an orthodox way that fits you.

That could be as simple as noting approximately how many inches you drop your elbow, and then burning that into your subconscious to make it automatic, consistent, and repeatable. In other words, turn something that might be considered unorthodox, into textbook for your own style.

I think a good example would be Efren's pump stroke. Not orthodox by any means, but for him it's completely orthodox.

 

[Pidge]

A great book and I'm sure you will get a lot of enjoyment out of. An absolute bargain by the look of it too!

 

[FranCrimi]

I'll explain how I interpreted what he was saying, and I'll use the notorious elbow drop since that's always a heated topic

There are no stern rules that say you can't drop your elbow, but if you're going to do so, then do it in an orthodox way that fits you.

That could be as simple as noting approximately how many inches you drop your elbow, and then burning that into your subconscious to make it automatic, consistent, and repeatable. In other words, turn something that might be considered unorthodox, into textbook for your own style.

I think a good example would be Efren's pump stroke. Not orthodox by any means, but for him it's completely orthodox.

The definition of orthodoxy in Webster's is: "Authorized or generally accepted theory, doctrine, or practice."

It sounds like he might be saying that although nothing is absolute, you should work within the framework of generally accepted theories, doctrines or practices in determining what is most effective for you.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

The definition of orthodoxy in Webster's is: "Authorized or generally accepted theory, doctrine, or practice."

It sounds like he might be saying that although nothing is absolute, you should work within the framework of generally accepted theories, doctrines or practices in determining what is most effective for you.

That's what he's saying, and it has merit generally, but I think he goes too far when he says "must".

I'd simply say that orthodoxy became orthodoxy for good reasons, so it's probably the best general "model" to start with (and maybe to compare with ongoing). I think of it kinda like a banking system: a good reference that usually needs to be adapted to the specific conditions (in this case the specific player).

pj
chgo

 

[rrick33]

That's what he's saying, and it has merit generally, but I think he goes too far when he says "must".

I'd simply say that orthodoxy became orthodoxy for good reasons, so it's probably the best general "model" to start with (and maybe to compare with ongoing). I think of it kinda like a banking system: a good reference that usually needs to be adapted to the specific conditions (in this case the specific player).

pj
chgo

I tend to think that the "must" in his quote is critical but it may be that I'm interpreting the meaning in a different way.

For example: We are all anatomically similar in that we have two arms, legs and we stand upright. Therefore, no matter how many different approaches we test, there will always be a specific range of principles that "must" be adhered to in order to develop an efficient approach.

You must be within that range to execute at the highest possible standards.
You could spend a lifetime trying to shoot behind your back but you will never achieve the level of performance you can achieve using tried and true fundamentals.

While my example may seem like an extreme case.....everything is simply a matter of degree.
Even those players using quasi traditional fundamentals may be just outside the realm of proficiency because they failed to recognize the "Range" of efficient principles at play that "must" be incorporated.

 

[ENGLISH!]

I tend to think that the "must" in his quote is critical but it may be that I'm interpreting the meaning in a different way.

For example: We are all anatomically similar in that we have two arms, legs and we stand upright. Therefore, no matter how many different approaches we test, there will always be a specific range of principles that "must" be adhered to in order to develop an efficient approach.

You must be within that range to execute at the highest possible standards.
You could spend a lifetime trying to shoot behind your back but you will never achieve the level of performance you can achieve using tried and true fundamentals.

While my example may seem like an extreme case.....everything is simply a matter of degree.
Even those players using quasi traditional fundamentals may be just outside the realm of proficiency because they failed to recognize the "Range" of efficient principles at play that "must" be incorporated.

I use to play a guy that shot one handed jack up & he was very good. One day I asked him why he shot one handed. He simply said because he shot much better one handed than he did with two.

We are all individuals even though we are of the species.

Best 2 You & Yours,
Rick

 

[FranCrimi]

OK, so what would be some examples of orthodoxy in our sport?

 

[Pidge]

Vision centre above the cue
One foot in front of the other
Bring the cue back then forward
Forearm relatively perpendicular to the floor
Solid bridge
Stable stance
Stillness
Bent at the hips
Sound PSR
...just to name a few.

 

[FranCrimi]

Vision centre above the cue
One foot in front of the other
Bring the cue back then forward
Forearm relatively perpendicular to the floor
Solid bridge
Stable stance
Stillness
Bent at the hips
Sound PSR
...just to name a few.

I think I might have his book somewhere ---I'll have to look for it, but I tend to think that Stephen Hendry might have had something more specific in mind when he referred to orthodoxy.

 

[Pidge]

He does, orthodox pool and orthodox snooker are different. The guidelines around orthodox snooker fundamentals are a lot more strict and less open to interpretation.

 

[FranCrimi]

He does, orthodox pool and orthodox snooker are different. The guidelines around orthodox snooker fundamentals are a lot more strict and less open to interpretation.

Why would that be?

 

[BeiberLvr]

Why would that be?

Interested in Pidge's response as well, but my guess would be the table forces players to focus more on a strict set of fundamentals.

In terms of what Hendry was talking about in the original quote, I think the accepted practice of a typical snooker stance is to have both feet facing the direction of the shot, and usually the toes of both feet are perpendicular with each other. However, most snooker coaches say it's okay to have the left foot (if right handed) slightly ahead, and you can even have the feet at an angle. So even though there is an orthodox stance for snooker, the variation is still within the framework of said stance.

What you won't see is a snooker coach saying it's okay to have both knees bent.

From all the studying I've done in regards to snooker, it's clear as day that they spend more time on their fundamentals, because again; the table requires they do so.


Sorry for the long winded response to a question that wasn't even directed at me.

 

[Pidge]

Why would that be?

Tradition mostly. Tradition is caused by people taking up a set way of doing things in snooker. Joe Davis lead the way with his thoughts on fundamentals then players started to copy what he was doing. Same with Steve Davis. He had rock solid fundamentals and players of todays age learned from him and instructors picked up why what he was doing was so effective and started to teach it. The same with Ronnie and his grip. The amount of kids I see gripping the cue with the middle finger like Ronnie down at the snooker club is astounding.

 

[BilliardsAbout]

Like Joe Davis teaching to stretch between your shoulder blades and to stretch your left arm as far and straight as possible. Snooker players mimic these actions. I always ask myself why this or another action could be helpful or harmful.

 

[FranCrimi]

Tradition mostly. Tradition is caused by people taking up a set way of doing things in snooker. Joe Davis lead the way with his thoughts on fundamentals then players started to copy what he was doing. Same with Steve Davis. He had rock solid fundamentals and players of todays age learned from him and instructors picked up why what he was doing was so effective and started to teach it. The same with Ronnie and his grip. The amount of kids I see gripping the cue with the middle finger like Ronnie down at the snooker club is astounding.

I think the smaller, lighter-weighted snooker balls and tight pockets are much more limiting than pool. There's less margin for error and therefore, less room to be creative.

 

[Pidge]

I think the smaller, lighter-weighted snooker balls and tight pockets are much more limiting than pool. There's less margin for error and therefore, less room to be creative.

Have you played on a snooker table before? A lot of pool players have this idea that snooker is played on punishing equipment. That simply isn't true. The only punishing aspect is the size of the table amplifies errors more over the distance. The pockets on TV tables are tight as hell but if you walk into any snooker hall in Britain the standard of tables are much more forgiving. The pockets are much bigger and the cloth a lot slower. You can cheat the pockets just as easily as you can in pool but that stops once the OB gets close to a rail. Snooker opens up to be highly creative if you are that way out. In every snooker club up and down the country you get the creative types, the ones who play upright, the ones who hammer every ball in, the ones who have that jabby stroke. They will never make it to the top like that. The fundamental formula is tried and tested in snooker and there are just some things you need to have to stand any chance of making it.