Elbow Droppings

mikepage said:
Sorry. I laughed when I read your post. Mine was a joke too.
Click to expand...
Lol, the classic "I was just joking / well I was just joking too" bit. Don't people realize that such confusion and embarrassment can be avoided with the appropriate emoticons? :) ;) :p :D

Anyways, back to the topic. Can someone please clean up all these elbow droppings? It's beginning to stink in here! :D
 
Last edited:
Neil said:
No one said you CAN"T play good with a collapsing elbow. But a number of us DID say that you can learn faster with a pendulum stroke.

If you want to spend 8-12 hours a day, every day, to learn 'your' stroke. Like the pros you mentioned did. Be my guest. Go learn the hard way. No one is saying you can't. We are just trying to shave many, many, hours off the learning processs.
Click to expand...

This is simply not true.

Where is the data to suport these claims?

Dale
 
Neil said:
You've got to be kidding me, right? Go look at all the students that have been taught this. Did they improve quicker?
Click to expand...

Ok this time I'll say it real slowly.

Data - suport - claims

DATA, not opinions

Dale
 
  • Like
Reactions: sde
Long late reply

I apologize for the delayed response?I don?t have internet at my fingertips at the moment.

Mike - Are you questioning observation? Method? I don?t feel the need to prove anything (just my opinion?you be the judge) but I would like to mention that current wisdom is commonly borne out of the need to be new or distinctive (this is a marketing tool for many). I don?t think you are actually arguing that the collapsing elbow is (or was) not used by many very good players or that it was for many years the de facto standard. Likewise I doubt that you would be arguing that it has already been proven (data...data) that dwell time can be increased with a softer tip or exaggerated English. So what part of the gobbdly (sp?) goop don?t you understand?
All I wanted to say is that when any competent researcher (scientist/engineer/mathematician) approaches a problem as difficult to measure; it is common to begin with careful observation to arrive at a hypothesis. The reason for this loop is to help avoid creating experimental methods that lack purpose. Conversely, when a problem hits the wall (due to verification issues) the normal method is to return to the hypothesis and carefully adjust it to incorporate any new information. Commonly the researcher will begin to carefully/methodically remove positions that are not supported while leaving room for positions that are yet to be clearly dis-proven. That is what is missing here. Leaving room for adjustments based on additional parameters which may not have yet been included.

I will leave you with this question ? in the seminal work on squirt, one of the ?results? states that no player can spin the ball more than XXX for a certain velocity. I completely reject this on the grounds that it implies that I (for example) can spin the ball as well as say?Scotty Townsend, given a set velocity. I have observed that I cannot. I realize that this velocity has not been defined, but I still reject it based on the fact that I believe (have observed) that a talented human can manipulate the dwell time with follow thru. This parameter is tossed out early in the calculations due to the lame argument that the time is too small to be meaningful. I am willing to state right now, categorically, that just because the time is small; the resultant effect on the interaction contemplated can be HUGE. I tried to give you a simplified example of how it ?might? work to help you see what could happen. I?m sorry I didn?t explain it any better?hope this helps. I have a thing about getting beat up with the scientific method when it is a marketing tool?so I had a little rant?didn?t mean to get big time involved or anything.
Just my opinion?you be the judge

As for the people who want to keep it simple?all I can say is ?It Is Not Simple?. Unlike golf, you do not carry around a basketful of clubs to hit the ball differently. You will eventually need to learn to vary your stroke greatly to accomplish the incredible number of different objections. I concede it may be easier to get some initial speed from hard and fast rules, but this is a creative game requiring analytical, risk assessment skills. While you may play better initially, I encourage you to be creative and bold when you want to increase your enjoyment of the game.
Just my opinion?you be the judge
I was under the impression we weren?t talking exclusively about beginner players.

I don?t think a cue has to be whippy to increase dwell time. Try dropping your elbow as I describe it and see if you don?t find that a gravity fed elbow drop on many soft ?touch? shots will afford you a reliable way to gain fine control over the speed/spin of the ball. If it doesn?t work for you the first time, practice it?add it to your shot bag. Like I said, I wish you could have seen Keith when he was young and $%^&* amazing. He was the master of the slow spin shot?he could shoot so slow and you could almost hear the ball spinning. I saw him completely demoralize several players with his ability to do something they simply could not do.

Let?s try to be encompassing and redefine quirks as shots/methods we don?t understand. That way we don?t lose our sense of wonder and inquiry?both of these are required (in my opinion) to truly improve.

Sorry for the long rant

JMO..YBTJ

Andy Bruce
Hittman
 
HittMan said:
... in the seminal work on squirt, one of the ?results? states that no player can spin the ball more than XXX for a certain velocity. I completely reject this on the grounds that it implies that I (for example) can spin the ball as well as say?Scotty Townsend, given a set velocity. I have observed that I cannot. ...
Click to expand...
While you probably are not as consistent as Scotty, I think you could come close if you hit the cue ball the same distance off center as he does. Why you don't seem to be able to do that could be due to any of many fundamental problems, starting with lousy chalking. Really, chalking. If you bore a hole down the middle of the chalk, like most mediocre players, you are chalking wrong. Good players don't chalk like that. Or, you could be jumping up. Or swerving your stroke to the middle. Either of those will mean that you aren't hitting the cue ball where you intend, and if you can't do that, it's hard to hit out towards the edge of miscue territory.

In any case, your inability to perform remarkable spin shots disproves nothing.
 
It is absolutely true...SPFF works better!

pdcue said:
This is simply not true.

Where is the data to suport these claims?

Dale
Click to expand...

Dale...Neil is correct, and there is a veritable mountain of positive feedback to back up the "claims" that SPFF heightens the learning curve significantly for any abiliity player. Why? Because you come to pool school and learn what you don't know about pool. Before you come, you simply don't know what you don't know! :D Are all graduates of our program champions because they came? No. However champions come through pool school too, because they WANT to know what they don't know...and know we can teach them...even if we can't sometimes beat them!

Nobody is arguing that you cannot learn to play pool at an expert level by dropping your elbow. We're just saying we believe it is quicker and easier to attain that level of expertise by developing a more precise, accurate and repeatable stroke...and that comes with SPFF.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
 
People who have misconception about that little pause. I'm no instructor at all but I do get similar questions sometimes. Share abit here. Imagine in a car, to reverse then forward faster or straightaway forward faster? In terms of acceleration? Cue speed? (Ok we need a backswing here-reverse). Eventually after reversing you still catch up but whatever it is before you enter first gear again is nothing for the CB, no power at all, everything is after the final pause, car stop first then go forward again. Only then the acceleration and power or cue speed begin. And this smooth transition in the whole stroke takes time to practise.

Hope those confused L-plates can get a clearer idea with this example.
 
Last edited:
The points about facts of fast improvement are all opinions. Like every sport, everybody is different. Some have natural talent and adapt quicker. Some are left brained some are right. Anytime you are comparing two different people there is no apples to apples comparison. Also, are you talking about improving from can't make a ball to running 3 balls, or going from running 3 out of 10 tables to running 7 out of 10 tables.

Going from a begginner to intermediate, yes a consistent stroke is key and giving them a set stroke, with or without pause, and with or without elbow drop will help them improve quicker.

Going from an advanced player to a pro, on the other hand, is much harder. You cannot follow one set of guidlines for a stroke. There is no silver bullet for anything. As i said evrybody is different and when you want to perfect your game you need to try all options, elbow drp and no elbow drop and see what is for you.

I personally tried both and trying not to drop my elbow, all my life of pool, i realized tightens my stroke. I went to dropping my elbow on every shot, as it is natural, and my grip was relaxed and my stroke was straighter.

Lastly, I believe it is a myth that most pros don't drop there elbows, because when I tested both methods I watched alot of pros online and realized alot of pros, in fact, do drop there elbows. One of the best strokes I watch lately is Cory Duell and he drops his elbow on almost every stroke.

Jager
 
Something that's been bugging me... I tried an exagerrated pause for a while and I felt like it helped, I think I shoot a bit straighter and with more focus that way. But I haven't been able to stick with it because there are certain shots where I can't get the action I want if I start from a completely still paused state... namely big draw (I can do medium draw fine).

I know I already mentioned this but I guess the point I wanted to ask about is... the instructors seem to think that all strokes HAVE to have a brief pause when the backswing transitions to the forward swing. But I don't think the swing is as straightforward as just back, stop, forward (though I think they try to make students simplify it to that point, and that's almost certainly a good thing)

But people with a more piston-y stroke do something more like back, down, forward, in a smooth sorta circular motion. Imagine the metal bars that connect two wheels on a train... that's the motion. I feel like I need that continous loop motion to get my arm moving at the speed and straightness necessary to do big, accurate draw. If I pause and then try to do the same draw, I feel like I can't accelerate enough, or the acceleration is forced and jerky and ends up straying to the left and right a lot. I think doing the back-down-forward motion locks my arm into a straight track.

So, uh, any comment? Try to break the habit? Too ingrained to break? Not necessarily bad?
 
Neil said:
O.K. I'll give you an equally senseless response.
--Show me the data that I am wrong.

P.S. In the poll I conducted, 100% of all respondents agreed. (my wife, my daughter, and myself) Now, if you really want data, see if you can get ahold of the BCA's student feedback forms. Other than that, just what data do you possibly think there could be one way or the other? Do you really think someone went out and surveyed all the poolplayers?
Click to expand...

OK, now I see the problem.

Surveying every poolplayer on the planet would give you
millions opinions, and zero suporting data.

Here is a thought:
English Snooker players are demons at 'potting'<pocketing balls>
English players are taught the 'piston' stroke.

Think there is a connection?

Dale
 
Scott Lee said:
Dale...Neil is correct, and there is a veritable mountain of positive feedback to back up the "claims" that SPFF heightens the learning curve significantly for any abiliity player. Why? Because you come to pool school and learn what you don't know about pool. Before you come, you simply don't know what you don't know! :D Are all graduates of our program champions because they came? No. However champions come through pool school too, because they WANT to know what they don't know...and know we can teach them...even if we can't sometimes beat them!

Nobody is arguing that you cannot learn to play pool at an expert level by dropping your elbow. We're just saying we believe it is quicker and easier to attain that level of expertise by developing a more precise, accurate and repeatable stroke...and that comes with SPFF.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
Click to expand...

Let's get a bit of clairification here.

First off, I might have gotten a bit off track with the better/faster
argument. Personaly, I could care less if you can teach
Mary Jane how to run 3 balls faster than I can because you
program her to never drop her elbow.

My interest is in advanced/expert players. And this a discussion
of which method is better for playing - not for teaching beginners.

So, Is it your position that a player should NEVER drop his elbow?
This is purely hypo - no need to point out there are many great
players who do/don't.

Dale
 
Last edited:
Hello Bob

Bob Jewett said:
While you probably are not as consistent as Scotty, I think you could come close if you hit the cue ball the same distance off center as he does. Why you don't seem to be able to do that could be due to any of many fundamental problems, starting with lousy chalking. Really, chalking. If you bore a hole down the middle of the chalk, like most mediocre players, you are chalking wrong. Good players don't chalk like that. Or, you could be jumping up. Or swerving your stroke to the middle. Either of those will mean that you aren't hitting the cue ball where you intend, and if you can't do that, it's hard to hit out towards the edge of miscue territory.

In any case, your inability to perform remarkable spin shots disproves nothing.
Click to expand...


I certainly agree that it "proves" nothing...however I fail to see where supporting a flawed conclusion proves anything either.

You are willing to propose that chalking will change the outcome but unwilling to concede that a small increase in dwell time might have an effect? I am willing to consider this because the scale of the transaction makes it difficult to measure within a meaningful margin of error.

Did you not already remind us that dwell time could be affected by softer tips, spin, etc. As you know, I think the model is a very good first attempt. What is curious though, is how repugnant proposed refinements appear to be.

I hope we get to meet someday. I can't tell what you really think over this forum. I get the feeling you bait me sometimes.

I really don't have a dog in the fight except for my interest in presenting a reasonable picture and keeping an open mind.

just my opinion...you be the judge

Andy Bruce
Hittman
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top