I am really sorry I didn?t get in on the recent elbow thread?great theatre?IMO. I am also really sorry that when we talk about elbow drop and the stroke (that we ALL love) no one mentioned the following points that seem so important (and obvious) to me. So just for effect, I am going to wade in and respectfully disagree (throw the BS flag). While I agree it's nice to simplify a beginner's world...I think we have a responsibility to report the truth about the complexity of the body mechanics required to play competitively.
Fewer moving parts ? While this ?axiom? may appear infallible; the dynamic mechanism (the body/cue) being analyzed might also appropriately account for parts NOT moved?particularly if those parts could be considered counterintuitive, countermomentus (my term) or counter-observational. Someone finally brought up the ?planes? concept but no one mentioned the path of the cue????? I don't think the discussion is meaningful without path.
Repeatability ? it appears to be generally agreed that this is the holy grail of improved play. SO?let?s concentrate on teaching what affects repeatability by trying to critique a method with this as a yardstick. Consequently?what I try to communicate is an ideal of body mechanics model that can be relaxed into and will remain intuitive and fluid. In my humble opinion, the single most important feature of this model is the Gravity Fed Mechanism which results only when the player actually relaxes and gets still. See the sequential ?Transcendental Pool? articles at hittcues.researchrobotics.com. Pay attention to the section on alignment and height of eye.
Observation ? I believe in the power of observation and believe the observer and the interpreter should endeavor to bring the observed phenomenon and the science of the game into alignment. I fully understand that the dwell (tip contact) time is quite short, however I reject the argument (counter-observational) that follow-thru and acceleration have no effect on the outcome of a shot. If for no other reason, let us assume that if the time frames are so short as to be difficult to measure then the physics/dynamics of the exchange are more difficult to examine by at least, say? an order of magnitude. This alone should cause us to reject (or discount as partial truth) any test result that runs against observation?rather than confirm its validity. In addition?if dwell is only .002 seconds then .0022 seconds represents a 10% increase (approximately). That?s a lot of bang for 2 ten-thousandths of a second. Still think the time is too short to manipulate? It is unlikely scale precludes manipulation?please provide ANY evidence to support this novel position.
In Stroke ? Maybe we should consider differentiating between the performance of a specific shot, stringing a few racks and a lifetime of exemplary play. If for no other reason, the requirements are quite different. It is unlikely that a video of a match, particularly under the current TV coverage formula, will give you much of a window into how a particular player actually plays. It is my observation that as a player ?get?s in stroke? his body mechanics change as well?sometimes radically. Jerry Brock (former US Open Winner) might begin a difficult match with a short, closed bridge and end up playing with open bridge 18-20? from the CB. Guess which way he played better? Watch John Schmidt if you need a current example. Should have seen Keith McCready, Buddy Hall or Louie Roberts when they were young (say 30 years ago).
Most of the ?old guys? I got to study stood straight up and collapsed their elbows?Jersey Red, Don Watson, Handsome Danny Jones, and on and on. Things have changed?but don?t let anyone tell you there are absolutes?you will develop style by working on your game at the table. I say we can still trust our lying eyes.
Just my opinion?you be the judge
Andy Bruce
Hittman
Fewer moving parts ? While this ?axiom? may appear infallible; the dynamic mechanism (the body/cue) being analyzed might also appropriately account for parts NOT moved?particularly if those parts could be considered counterintuitive, countermomentus (my term) or counter-observational. Someone finally brought up the ?planes? concept but no one mentioned the path of the cue????? I don't think the discussion is meaningful without path.
Repeatability ? it appears to be generally agreed that this is the holy grail of improved play. SO?let?s concentrate on teaching what affects repeatability by trying to critique a method with this as a yardstick. Consequently?what I try to communicate is an ideal of body mechanics model that can be relaxed into and will remain intuitive and fluid. In my humble opinion, the single most important feature of this model is the Gravity Fed Mechanism which results only when the player actually relaxes and gets still. See the sequential ?Transcendental Pool? articles at hittcues.researchrobotics.com. Pay attention to the section on alignment and height of eye.
Observation ? I believe in the power of observation and believe the observer and the interpreter should endeavor to bring the observed phenomenon and the science of the game into alignment. I fully understand that the dwell (tip contact) time is quite short, however I reject the argument (counter-observational) that follow-thru and acceleration have no effect on the outcome of a shot. If for no other reason, let us assume that if the time frames are so short as to be difficult to measure then the physics/dynamics of the exchange are more difficult to examine by at least, say? an order of magnitude. This alone should cause us to reject (or discount as partial truth) any test result that runs against observation?rather than confirm its validity. In addition?if dwell is only .002 seconds then .0022 seconds represents a 10% increase (approximately). That?s a lot of bang for 2 ten-thousandths of a second. Still think the time is too short to manipulate? It is unlikely scale precludes manipulation?please provide ANY evidence to support this novel position.
In Stroke ? Maybe we should consider differentiating between the performance of a specific shot, stringing a few racks and a lifetime of exemplary play. If for no other reason, the requirements are quite different. It is unlikely that a video of a match, particularly under the current TV coverage formula, will give you much of a window into how a particular player actually plays. It is my observation that as a player ?get?s in stroke? his body mechanics change as well?sometimes radically. Jerry Brock (former US Open Winner) might begin a difficult match with a short, closed bridge and end up playing with open bridge 18-20? from the CB. Guess which way he played better? Watch John Schmidt if you need a current example. Should have seen Keith McCready, Buddy Hall or Louie Roberts when they were young (say 30 years ago).
Most of the ?old guys? I got to study stood straight up and collapsed their elbows?Jersey Red, Don Watson, Handsome Danny Jones, and on and on. Things have changed?but don?t let anyone tell you there are absolutes?you will develop style by working on your game at the table. I say we can still trust our lying eyes.
Just my opinion?you be the judge
Andy Bruce
Hittman
)
