hmm... I had to look it up because I honestly couldn't recall. Not that it's solid info but here's the first reference I found, and it conveniently lines up with what I was thinking...lol
Snooker originated as an outdoor game. When the idea of moving it indoor was evolved the idea of two larger tables was usually abandoned, and a billiard table and a dining table were combined. Planks were set on top of the table when dining. The dining area was conveniently located next to the kitchen. When the balls were broken the rule was to break from the kitchen end to avoid break balls flying into the kitchen. When used for dining the head of the family was served first. He was located at the head end of the table, closest to the kitchen. The anatomy metaphor was extend to name the opposite end the foot. For some reason when renamed as top and bottom cushions the connotation was reversed. It may have had something to do with the layout when introduced into gentleman’s clubs.
I'd love to see some documentation on this.... Not calling you a lair, but it screams mythos ...that and I can't find anything that jives with your post....lol
One problem with billiard history is that some of it is made up. Like Cleopatra playing billiards in Shakespeare.
Glad you're ok. So, a lot of options have been put forth, which do you think is best?
Ya no doubt...
Wasn't pool (or pocket billiards generally?) first an indoor version of tabletop croquet?
I didn't dig beyond the birth of snooker. That stands to reason though....
K. I wasn't considering the table orientation, just the layout.
I’m just parroting what I’ve read. As to researching I quickly found this. http://www.billiardsforum.com/billiard-terms-definition/kitchen Proof of anything can be questioned. I just thought a little color can’t hurt. I’d rather the game be noted for this than the seedy part that is provable. Men’s clubs were targeted by prostitutes in a era when 30% of the population never married. Every family had spinster aunts and bachelor uncles. In England they were initially clubs for the upper class. America‘s version of clubs weren’t a class act and the dirty 30’s didn’t help. Desperate men looked to gamble and the pool halls were hangouts for single men, prime candidates for the hookers. I think I would rather be associated with the lore rather than the dirty underbelly.
After a little research I discovered that the kitchen story appeared in print in a book in 1993. The story is attributed to a single person, Jim Vitalo of Willow Springs, Illinois. If that is the same James Vitalo who lives there now, he was 36 at the time of publication.
You can do it with your regular stroke, but to master the near-rail cross-table play, it helps to slightly elevate the cue through the bridge and think of moving the whole arm on the forward stroke "in" rather than the lower arm only. Mastering that sort of brooming or raking stroke with an o.b. on the rail takes a few minutes and will give you excellent position with the c.b. at will. Start at a shallower angle on the c.b. while you're learning this stroke. In clinics, I call aloud before the stroke whether the c.b. will die on the rail, pass it or come short of the rail.
A whole arm stroke needs a slightly more inclined cue plane. The forward dynamic of the stroke starts with a rotation at the shoulder joint before the rotation from the elbow joint. Looking at the arm rotated down slightly you see that the cue hand comes down. Without a higher starting point at the back of the stroke the dropped hand ends up below the bridge. The higher backswing plane also raises the body slightly. The shoulder rotation allows the cueing hand to clear under the body on the forward stroke and not endlong up digging into the chest. The whole arm judges the speed. It’s like an underhand tossing motion rather than a timed pendulum release. A toss motion is longer and more easily sensed. I totally agree that the distance of travel dynamic seems to be slower and easier to calculate.
So the idea is that a whole arm motion makes speed calibration easier? Then why not do it on all shots?
Ronnie O’Sullivan does it on many, especially stun run through and follow shots. He doesn’t on most stun or stop shots. I see him using it on even slower short shots sometimes. When the whole arm is moving you seem to be able to control slow movement easier. The alternatives seem to result in quit strokes or handsy actions. Not saying there aren’t tons of ways to shoot any shot. But as BilliardsAbout experienced the distance control seems to be more easily calibrated over the longer style of action. The wrist still needs to flex forward but when the drive comes from the arm rather than the hand the grip stays more passive. I know there are those on the forum who believe that the cushioning of the hand stops mass force from imparting momentum. Tell that to fighters. Despite a padded glove the impact of a fast jab doesn’t compare to the power of a punch when more mass is put behind a likely slower hit. The momentum can lift the fighter right off his feet. A padded wrecking ball doesn’t get its main momentum from speed alone. The whole arm stroke has the mass of the upper arm as part of the contributing mass. IMHO
There is a concept in skill development that the faster a person has to execute a skill, the higher the error level. It’s especially crucial in team sports but it shouldn’t be ignored here. When the whole arm is used to deliver the momentum the less the hand feels like it has to get involved in the production of velocity. The extra mass helps create the same momentum with less velocity. There is a sense of more control when the hand takes a back seat to the arm delivering the cue. The difference is subtle because the elbow still has to hinge in a synchronous manner. Coordination learned through a pendulum stroke definitely helps. For me the chief difference is that there is more arm swing rather than an appendage simply hanging.