Its been a while since someone offered me the breaks, so I guess I would have to try you some.:grin::grin:
Lee Brett making a splash at the U.S. Open
- Thread starter JoeyA
- Start date
Its been a while since someone offered me the breaks, so I guess I would have to try you some.:grin::grin:
RBC
Deceased
Joey
I watched a little on Saturday night after I got back to the hotel, and then some on Sunday from the airport waiting on my plane. I guess I missed your commentary though! I am sure you did me proud, so thanks as always! I guess the tourney ended a little early because I tried to pick it in the evening when I got home but it was off the air.
Call me sometime!
Royce Bunnell
www.obcues.com
RBC
Deceased
3Kushn
I guess I have to admit, I'm not sure what you were going for there.
I don't that much about what Lee Brett teaches, so I am assuming that the videos show something different.
I really do like to watch 3 cushion though, so I definitely got caught up in it!
Fill me in on what you telling me that I didn't get!
Thanks!
Royce Bunnell
www.obcues.com
I guess I have to admit, I'm not sure what you were going for there.
I don't that much about what Lee Brett teaches, so I am assuming that the videos show something different.
I really do like to watch 3 cushion though, so I definitely got caught up in it!
Fill me in on what you telling me that I didn't get!
Thanks!
Royce Bunnell
www.obcues.com
Its hard to have the cue contact the felt on a simple topspin shot.
Lee teaches a great followthrough technique. The elbow drop is to get through the ball.
Eventually with as long of a follow through that Lee has, the cue will touch the felt.
Maybe you should ask Lee?
Originally Posted by D_Lewis
Its hard to have the cue contact the felt on a simple topspin shot.
Lee teaches a great followthrough technique. The elbow drop is to get through the ball.
Eventually with as long of a follow through that Lee has, the cue will touch the felt.
D_Lewis
First of all I didn't say touch the cloth I said seek the cloth. With everything else being perfect, without an elbow drop at the end of the stroke, the tip must seek the cloth. His cue was perfectly parallel at the end.
Randyg
In reality you're right. An extremely long follow through does nothing in and of itself to the CB, it's already gone. What it does do, at least for me, is force a smoother delivery through the ball. It's simply a technique I've found that insures that I don't punch the ball and I might add that I believe I have a better feel for the CB. That being said I don't ever tell people that this is the right thing to do as there is the obvious downfall, I'm not qualified, and it goes against what all the guys like yourself teach who are qualified. A perfect pendulum swing along with all the rest must be ingrained first before other techniques are used if ever. When I've fallen out or stoke I go back to the pendulum till that's working well.
I think it was Cameron Smith that suggested we look at this as an example of a great stroke. How can we argue?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmDPJDwcFDs&feature=related
Its hard to have the cue contact the felt on a simple topspin shot.
Lee teaches a great followthrough technique. The elbow drop is to get through the ball.
Eventually with as long of a follow through that Lee has, the cue will touch the felt.
D_Lewis
First of all I didn't say touch the cloth I said seek the cloth. With everything else being perfect, without an elbow drop at the end of the stroke, the tip must seek the cloth. His cue was perfectly parallel at the end.
Randyg
In reality you're right. An extremely long follow through does nothing in and of itself to the CB, it's already gone. What it does do, at least for me, is force a smoother delivery through the ball. It's simply a technique I've found that insures that I don't punch the ball and I might add that I believe I have a better feel for the CB. That being said I don't ever tell people that this is the right thing to do as there is the obvious downfall, I'm not qualified, and it goes against what all the guys like yourself teach who are qualified. A perfect pendulum swing along with all the rest must be ingrained first before other techniques are used if ever. When I've fallen out or stoke I go back to the pendulum till that's working well.
I think it was Cameron Smith that suggested we look at this as an example of a great stroke. How can we argue?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmDPJDwcFDs&feature=related
Last edited:
In golf, the moment the golf ball hits the club face--- it's gone. Does that mean your club stops 5" in front of your divot? In tennis, does Federer stop the racket 5" in front of impact? Why not--- the ball's already gone.
I think we get so caught up in the science of "the moment of impact" that we forget about the science of everything else. This is a game of extremely small vibrations, movements, etc. The tiniest thing affects everything.
We all agree that no follow-through is really bad, right? Then why not err on the side of a larger follow-through? You can't follow-through too much in pool. You can't say a big follow-through makes for an inconsistent stroke or a poorly delivered stroke. I think a lot of guys would struggle to fight that side of an argument (if you do, then you risk someone decelerating before they even hit the CB in fear of a long follow-through... which is ridiculous).
One thing you can say for a longer follow-through is momentum - it helps you stay with the shot, if anything. I also don't think an elbow drop "isn't" a pendulum stroke unless you do it before impact, which no one does. If someone drops their elbow as a result of follow-through - it's identical to someone who doesn't... they just eliminate the risk of "small" premature movements due to momentum.
A lot of pros drop their elbows on certain shots. A LOT. It has nothing to do with them playing well with poor mechanics - it's follow through post-impact.
Just my 2 cents.
I think we get so caught up in the science of "the moment of impact" that we forget about the science of everything else. This is a game of extremely small vibrations, movements, etc. The tiniest thing affects everything.
We all agree that no follow-through is really bad, right? Then why not err on the side of a larger follow-through? You can't follow-through too much in pool. You can't say a big follow-through makes for an inconsistent stroke or a poorly delivered stroke. I think a lot of guys would struggle to fight that side of an argument (if you do, then you risk someone decelerating before they even hit the CB in fear of a long follow-through... which is ridiculous).
One thing you can say for a longer follow-through is momentum - it helps you stay with the shot, if anything. I also don't think an elbow drop "isn't" a pendulum stroke unless you do it before impact, which no one does. If someone drops their elbow as a result of follow-through - it's identical to someone who doesn't... they just eliminate the risk of "small" premature movements due to momentum.
A lot of pros drop their elbows on certain shots. A LOT. It has nothing to do with them playing well with poor mechanics - it's follow through post-impact.
Just my 2 cents.
They couldn't stop that short if they wanted to. They swing much too hard.
But here's another question: does Tiger follow through around to his finishing position for a drive on a 20-foot putt? Why not? Longer follow-through is better, right? The reason why not is that he'd have a hard time making sure he stayed balanced and aligned through the stroke while his body was anticipating rotating the hips and shoulders, shifting weight onto the front foot, and extending upward to full height.
You totally can follow through too much. If your stroke isn't straight due to an unconscious movement your body makes in preparation to force a long follow-through, then your follow through is too long. Just like if you decelerate in anticipation of stopping your follow through short. Two sides of the same coin.
I agree...
I totally disagree. How would dropping the elbow eliminate that risk? I guess it eliminates the risk of premature motions due to stopping the cue short, but it does so by introducing the risk of premature motions due to dropping the elbow! It's the same problem, just the opposite end of it.
And if they do it because their momentum naturally carries them there, then I don't see a problem with it. But if the follow-through only naturally wants to be a few inches, because that's as far as the momentum naturally carries the cue after accelerating all the way into contact, but you force the elbow drop anyway because you think it's a good idea, then you're committing the same error of fundamentals as Tiger Woods rotating all the way through a putt as if it were a drive.
-Andrew
bar table
When Ronnie gets rolling he makes it look like he is playing on a bar table. I don't know if the potting skills are more impressive or watching snooker players travel the cue ball over 25 feet to play a safety behind one ball. Whichever, you can't fault mechanics that lets players handle a cue ball like they do.
Although there has always been a little it seems that much more side is used by today's snooker players than those of maybe a half-century ago. They have to make some changes to play pool but not all that many.
Hu
When Ronnie gets rolling he makes it look like he is playing on a bar table. I don't know if the potting skills are more impressive or watching snooker players travel the cue ball over 25 feet to play a safety behind one ball. Whichever, you can't fault mechanics that lets players handle a cue ball like they do.
Although there has always been a little it seems that much more side is used by today's snooker players than those of maybe a half-century ago. They have to make some changes to play pool but not all that many.
Hu
Andrew,
I'm not much of a golfer but a putt stroke is quite different from a drive stroke. I'd contend that Tiger's putt follow through is nearly as, or as long as he can naturally go. But that's for him to say.
You use the word "forced" long follow through. There's nothing forces about it. Nice smooth natural ending.
And yes I don't think the elbow drop eliminates flaws other than possibly premature deceleration. But what it does for me is at the very least, is give me the sensation of better feel and control. When I look at my averages with and without the drop it seems more than just in my head.
Respectfully
I dont force or exaggerate my follow through on most shots, sometimes on long straight in shots I will extend it further than normal because it gives me confidence in my shot. Sometimes I also use the throwing method where I kind of throw the cue at the ball and it slides slightly through my hand.
Ronnie has an excellent showing of the elbow drop.
Andrew:
I think we're actually saying the same thing. Nobody drops their elbow on a small shot that doesn't require stroke (as in your golf analogy - I totally agree). When a shot requires stroke, you can either let the momentum carry the elbow forward (drop) or you can keep the upper arm parallel to the ground and let momentum carry your hand to your chest. Why would dropping your elbow with momentum be any different when the ball is long gone? I've played my whole life without dropping the elbow but I'm open to new things. As I said - I see the pros do it and almost all of the snooker guys do it.
Of course, if your stroke is crooked...none of what we're talking about really matters. Who cares where you follow-through to if the arm is swinging you off-line?
Dave
I think we're actually saying the same thing. Nobody drops their elbow on a small shot that doesn't require stroke (as in your golf analogy - I totally agree). When a shot requires stroke, you can either let the momentum carry the elbow forward (drop) or you can keep the upper arm parallel to the ground and let momentum carry your hand to your chest. Why would dropping your elbow with momentum be any different when the ball is long gone? I've played my whole life without dropping the elbow but I'm open to new things. As I said - I see the pros do it and almost all of the snooker guys do it.
Of course, if your stroke is crooked...none of what we're talking about really matters. Who cares where you follow-through to if the arm is swinging you off-line?
Dave
A good follow through allows you to strike the cue ball at maximum velocity. If your stop at the cue ball or just after contact, you are actually slowing your stroke before contact. It's important that you don't de-accelerate until after you've contacted the ball. This is why Ronnie in the above clip can generate so much force all the while it looks like he barely hit the ball.
In boxing they teach to punch through your target, same thing applies to the stroke in pool.
One of the most important parts of good stroke is timing, the follow through is key part of achieving this.
In boxing they teach to punch through your target, same thing applies to the stroke in pool.
One of the most important parts of good stroke is timing, the follow through is key part of achieving this.
Allen Hopkins is a good example of a short stroke that does work, for him, at least. Allen does follow through, just not very far. Willie Mosconi, in his little red book, advocates using a short stroke, though he was referring to Straight Pool and I'm guessing that this discussion, like most others these days, refers to 9 ball.
True, but a "good" follow through doesn't have to mean a very long follow through. I follow through about 8", and I see some players forcing a follow through of double that (or more), well beyond their stroke's natural finish, because well-meaning people have told them more follow-through means more power.
I guess what I'm saying is that allowing the elbow to drop on power strokes because the momentum of the stroke pulls it down is one thing, but consciously causing the elbow to drop by artificially extending the follow-through is surely a mechanical flaw. So when somebody says they "teach" the elbow drop, what I hear is they're taking those players whose elbows aren't naturally dropping, and introducing a mechanical flaw into their game.
-Andrew
