Pool suggestions you should avoid.
- Thread starter JoeyA
- Start date
Everything is relative.
You've got a great list. It made me smile. Thanks to everyone who is contributing.
Seymour you could elaborate a little, especially about #8. I love to hear what people think.
In looking at your list I realize that a few of the suggestions on your list depend upon your level of play, while other depend on other factors as well.
JoeyA
P.S. Add this one: "Get in your innings before you win. It's not gonna hurt your game."
seymore15074 said:
You've got a great list. It made me smile. Thanks to everyone who is contributing.
Seymour you could elaborate a little, especially about #8. I love to hear what people think.
In looking at your list I realize that a few of the suggestions on your list depend upon your level of play, while other depend on other factors as well.
JoeyA
P.S. Add this one: "Get in your innings before you win. It's not gonna hurt your game."
I don't really recall anyone saying that BHE is an excuse not too learn to stroke well. The stroke is my top priority with ANY student. However, as I said before, beginners are going to make more cueing errors than more advanced players, so why not show them a way to minimize the mistakes they make? In no way does that condone not learning other ways to play english, align, or pocket balls. If I, as an instructor, see a student do something "wrong" and still manage to pocket a ball, I will let him know. As an admittedly bad but avid golfer, you already realize that you may do something right, even when you do it wrong, which is a good thing and the mark of a good student. I can only hope that my students learn the same.Aaron_S said:
In the end, I think your belief that BHE is inferior is really why you think beginners shouldn't be taught BHE, and that's a valid opinion. However, just think about the number and quality of players using BHE. There must be a reason players such as Efren Reyes manage to succeed despite using an inferior methodology.
-djb
I put a major qualification on it, and that was that the player use it "strictly." By that I meant that he should really go through only the stated BHE steps. What he probably does is to add feel to the shot and modify the squirt compensation as needed for speed, elevation, distance to the ball, cloth conditions, etc. If a player doesn't change his BHE bridge length according to the newness of the cloth, he must be compensating in some other way, and I don't think many players do such a bridge length change. He also needs to change the bridge length for each of those other factors.TATE said:
DoomCue said:
No, not an excuse. My opinion is that it makes it more difficult to learn how to stroke straight when you're pushing the butt of the cue away from you on certain shots, pulling it in toward your body on others, and not doing either of those the rest of the time. Not to mention the fact that, when applying english, the tip of your cue is pointing over there at another table somewhere, thus destroying that reference point that could otherwise be used for aiming. I dont' think that people who are still learning how to aim and stroke need that unnecessary added difficulty.
DoomCue said:
I don't view it as minimizing mistakes, I view it as masking mistakes. Mistakes that could otherwise be informative to the player, if they knew they were happening.
Which is also part of the problem. He needs to be able to diagnose his problems for himself. If, by using BHE, he is masking the results of doing something wrong, how is he to know it when you're not standing over his shoulder?DoomCue said:
DoomCue said:
Probably. That and the fact that I think that it is an advanced concept. Having the cue skewed in relation to the line of the shot totally obliterates a couple of reference points that I consider to be important. I don't think the sacrifice is worth the gain.
DoomCue said:
As I stated previously, I have no gripe against any advanced player who chooses to use BHE. As far as that goes, look at Jim Furyk, Jim Thorpe, or, in pool, Keith McCready. There are many unorthodox, yet very effective, styles out there. We're also taking about self-taught people, though, who got to where they are simply because of their boundless determination and drive. Your ordinary player doesn't want it that bad.
DoomCue said:
This I don't understand. You must be talking about swerve english. If so, I put that in an entirely different category, and, as a matter of fact, I use swerve english myself on occasion. This is also an advanced technique, IMO, but is not used as tool for compensating for squirt. Swerve english is simply a way to impart more spin than is possible using a straight though stroke, and it is very effective, which you can plainly see by watching Efren. I have watched many hours of Efren footage, and never once have I seen him get down on the ball, take a few practice strokes at center ball, cock the back end of his cue out for left-hand spin, take a few more strokes, then fire. If Efren is going to put left-hand english on the ball, he sets up for left hand english.
So, maybe what I'm referring to would be more accurately be called "aim-and-pivot", as Bob referred to it. That is the only thing that has ever registered in my mind as being "back-hand-english", so I've never worried about anyone confusing that with swerve english. I apologize if my terminology is not exactly the same as yours.
Just so you know, I do understand where you're coming from, and I respect your opinion; you're arguments have been well-stated, and they all make perfect sense. I'm still going to have to humbly disagree, however, that introducing a beginner to aim & pivot english is in their best interests.
Aaron
DoomCue said:
I have watched Reyes play countless times, and he lines up to the cueball with PARALLEL ENGLISH. If he wants left english, he lines up with left english, there is no pivot. Some people might think his stroke is erratic, but when Reyes is playing well, his stroke is very, very straight.
I think this is not parallel in the normal sense. Usually when people say "parallel english" I think they mean that the stick is parallel to what it would be if the shot was being played without english, but offset to the left or right, keeping the cue stick parallel to that line.cuetechasaurus said:
Since parallel english as described above doesn't put the ball in the pocket very often, and Efren often puts the ball in the pocket, I have to conclude that he does not use parallel english.
There was a poll about types of english within the last month, and I think what you are referring to (and what Efren uses) is "angled english" by the usage in that thread.
Bob Jewett said:
I meant parallel as in he lines up parallel on the same line as if he were using center ball, with the exception of compensation. But he does not get down and line up on center, and pivot or use back hand english or anything like that.
Bob Jewett said:
Bob while I don't like to mince meat, I think what Efren uses IS commonly regarded to as parallel English. Angled English may be a more precise term but a term that few ever use. I understood exactly what Cuetechasaurus was describing in the way that Efren lines up and I doubt many people will understand what angled English is now or in the future.
http://www.sfbilliards.com/faq.html
This web site suggests a term called "something close to" "parallel aiming" but maybe I'm taking it out of context.
JoeyA
Last edited:
all absolutes
I cringe every time I hear or read absolutes. Most people take them seriously and as given. "All cut shots are easier than all bank shots" is one of the absolutes I truly despise. I see people, sometimes even at the pro level, pick the harder shot rather than go even slightly rail first as an extension of this "never bank" fixation. We both know that kissing the rail with the cue ball or object ball is often our friend making a shot easier, not harder. There are even times(sacrilege!) when banking a shot is a better option than cutting a ball.
Using the rails is only a prime example of course. Don't drop the elbow is another "absolute" that while generally good advice is absolute BS when used as an absolute. Don't jack up the cue stick unless physically forced to because of interference with a ball or rail is another thing that is generally good advice but again lousy as an absolute. I have a training tape that sets up a follow shot that has to travel two or three times as far as a the draw shot used to compare the types of shots. Demonstrates beyond a doubt that we should always use a draw shot when possible because they are more accurate. Horse hockey!
Did I mention I hate hearing "absolutes?"
Pool fundamentals are just that, fundamentals to build on. Funny thing is that when I watch the top pro's I notice most of them shooting with "poor form" much of the time. Some seem to have genuine issues at times, most have moved beyond fundamentals to a real understanding of what they are trying to do. Once they have a real understanding of what they want to do and the fundamentals to build from, some very unusual techniques can be created. Blatantly wrong, unless the shot works.
Hu
I cringe every time I hear or read absolutes. Most people take them seriously and as given. "All cut shots are easier than all bank shots" is one of the absolutes I truly despise. I see people, sometimes even at the pro level, pick the harder shot rather than go even slightly rail first as an extension of this "never bank" fixation. We both know that kissing the rail with the cue ball or object ball is often our friend making a shot easier, not harder. There are even times(sacrilege!) when banking a shot is a better option than cutting a ball.
Using the rails is only a prime example of course. Don't drop the elbow is another "absolute" that while generally good advice is absolute BS when used as an absolute. Don't jack up the cue stick unless physically forced to because of interference with a ball or rail is another thing that is generally good advice but again lousy as an absolute. I have a training tape that sets up a follow shot that has to travel two or three times as far as a the draw shot used to compare the types of shots. Demonstrates beyond a doubt that we should always use a draw shot when possible because they are more accurate. Horse hockey!
Did I mention I hate hearing "absolutes?"
Pool fundamentals are just that, fundamentals to build on. Funny thing is that when I watch the top pro's I notice most of them shooting with "poor form" much of the time. Some seem to have genuine issues at times, most have moved beyond fundamentals to a real understanding of what they are trying to do. Once they have a real understanding of what they want to do and the fundamentals to build from, some very unusual techniques can be created. Blatantly wrong, unless the shot works.
Hu
JoeyA said:
ShootingArts said:I cringe every time I hear or read absolutes. Most people take them seriously and as given. "All cut shots are easier than all bank shots" is one of the absolutes I truly despise. I see people, sometimes even at the pro level, pick the harder shot rather than go even slightly rail first as an extension of this "never bank" fixation. We both know that kissing the rail with the cue ball or object ball is often our friend making a shot easier, not harder. There are even times(sacrilege!) when banking a shot is a better option than cutting a ball.
Using the rails is only a prime example of course. Don't drop the elbow is another "absolute" that while generally good advice is absolute BS when used as an absolute. Don't jack up the cue stick unless physically forced to because of interference with a ball or rail is another thing that is generally good advice but again lousy as an absolute. I have a training tape that sets up a follow shot that has to travel two or three times as far as a the draw shot used to compare the types of shots. Demonstrates beyond a doubt that we should always use a draw shot when possible because they are more accurate. Horse hockey!
Did I mention I hate hearing "absolutes?"
Pool fundamentals are just that, fundamentals to build on. Funny thing is that when I watch the top pro's I notice most of them shooting with "poor form" much of the time. Some seem to have genuine issues at times, most have moved beyond fundamentals to a real understanding of what they are trying to do. Once they have a real understanding of what they want to do and the fundamentals to build from, some very unusual techniques can be created. Blatantly wrong, unless the shot works.
Hu
While YOU may not like it, there are some things which are always true. The fact is that all cut shots are easier than bank shots. Any cut shot has only one variable...contact the OB in the correct place, and it goes in the pocket, regardless of what the CB is doing (sliding, rolling, spinning, etc.). A bank shot has many variables...speed, english, natural angle vs. creating the angle, table conditions (cloth and rails)...even the weather. Are banks a necessary part of playing pool? Yes.
As far as the elbow drop issue...to my knowledge there is no shot that can be made by dropping the elbow, that cannot be duplicated without the elbow drop. The pendulum swing is far more accurate (for 90+% of the poolplayers out there) and repeatable, so why do something else, unless it has some strategic advantage?
Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
JoeyA said:
Don't listen to anything that this character CaptainJR says. He doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to pool.
Especially on this new BHE thread that he is starting because of all the mentions in this thread about it. He probably doesn't want to take this thread off topic.
One to avoid:
YOU should shoot it the way I think it should be shot.
Well meaning people often project their own goals onto others. And when others, for example, shoot a different shot or shoot it a different way, these people criticize the shot...because they are projecting their own values onto others who may or may not hold them.
Each of us is in a different spot on our own roads in pool. Therefore, each of us rationally and logically chooses a different way that suits him/her just fine, even though it is the wrong thing to do for someone else.
Jeff Livingston
YOU should shoot it the way I think it should be shot.
Well meaning people often project their own goals onto others. And when others, for example, shoot a different shot or shoot it a different way, these people criticize the shot...because they are projecting their own values onto others who may or may not hold them.
Each of us is in a different spot on our own roads in pool. Therefore, each of us rationally and logically chooses a different way that suits him/her just fine, even though it is the wrong thing to do for someone else.
Jeff Livingston
I'm not sure what Fred's post said before he deleted it, but I'll say something I learned from him that I've come to believe myself: side-spin does not change the angle of cut-shots much. A lot of people suggest that you have to hit the ball more full if you're using outside, and unless you're shooting a soft stun shot, it seems to me like this advice will only make you miss. The only time I change my aim due to spin-induced throw is soft stun shots, particularly when the CB is very close to the OB. Otherwise it seems to me like it's a much better idea to ignore spin-induced throw if you want to pocket the ball.
The other advice I hear given on here that I think is bad is that a good player should stay on the vertical axis of the ball on almost every shot, and that side-spin is only rarely needed if you play well. While it's true that if you always have a good angle you shouldn't need side-spin, and true that side-spin complicates shots and is to be avoided when not needed, you're going to need to use it quite regularly no matter how well you play. Willie Mosconi may have been able to run patterns in straight pool with such tight control that he almost always had the angle he wanted, but very few can do that in 14.1, and nobody can do it in 9-ball. You'll be using side-spin to compensate for an imperfect angle several times per rack even if you're a top pro. And especially if you're not.
-Andrew
The other advice I hear given on here that I think is bad is that a good player should stay on the vertical axis of the ball on almost every shot, and that side-spin is only rarely needed if you play well. While it's true that if you always have a good angle you shouldn't need side-spin, and true that side-spin complicates shots and is to be avoided when not needed, you're going to need to use it quite regularly no matter how well you play. Willie Mosconi may have been able to run patterns in straight pool with such tight control that he almost always had the angle he wanted, but very few can do that in 14.1, and nobody can do it in 9-ball. You'll be using side-spin to compensate for an imperfect angle several times per rack even if you're a top pro. And especially if you're not.
-Andrew
Scott Lee said:
I Have to agree with ShootingArts. Sometimes the bank shot is the easier shot. Sometimes the bank is slightly harder, but easier to get good cueball position than from the cut.
There are more variables with a cut shot than just point of contact. Shot speed and throw also need to be taken into consideration, just to name two more variables that can make a difference.
Good Rolls,
Rasta
JoeyA said:
My list is based on a fast-track to success at a high level. Try to avoid wasting time, not learning up to your potential, etc. Also stay away from ego-centric envionments...rise above!
JoeyA said:
The glove... Let's just say that in my experience, I have stomped on any player wearing a glove. I have never seen a semi-pro come in, put on his glove, and play. It is not nessisary. I don't mean NEVER wear a glove, perhaps a particular hall is like an oven, or perhaps you have really really sweaty fingers... Most of the people that I see buy gloves are not taking care of their shafts to their liking--that is the problem. I sand my shafts smooth, and I don't rub them down until they are glossy, I like them smooth and dry. No Q-slick, no leather rubbing, just good smooth wood.
JoeyA said:
I don't get it.
Rasta said:
First of all, any advice involving throw can also be avoided (unless it involves hitting a rail or 2 frozen balls). I aim and pocket balls all day long with any english I desire and never once to I think about throwing the ball anywhere. Don't waste the brain power on it.
Secondly, cuts are always easier. Sometimes you have to bank a ball; and you do this because you HAVE TO. On second thought, I'll really throw a wench in the banking statement above with this one: What about throw on a bank, then?!
Scott Lee said:While YOU may not like it, there are some things which are always true. The fact is that all cut shots are easier than bank shots. Any cut shot has only one variable...contact the OB in the correct place, and it goes in the pocket, regardless of what the CB is doing (sliding, rolling, spinning, etc.). A bank shot has many variables...speed, english, natural angle vs. creating the angle, table conditions (cloth and rails)...even the weather. Are banks a necessary part of playing pool? Yes.
As far as the elbow drop issue...to my knowledge there is no shot that can be made by dropping the elbow, that cannot be duplicated without the elbow drop. The pendulum swing is far more accurate (for 90+% of the poolplayers out there) and repeatable, so why do something else, unless it has some strategic advantage?
Scott Lee
Scott, one of the points Hu was making is that a bank shot can often be a better option than a cut shot. An extreme example is a 89 degree cut shot (with other object balls keeping the cue from getting proper shape/(looking at a half pocket on a tight diamond table) or a same angle in same angle out bank shot at the corner pocket with a clear path for the cue ball to obtain perfect shape.
As to the elbow drop, I think more research is necessary and the professional pool players, since they do it, should be asked. Another way to ask might be, Why can they not make a particular shot without dropping their elbow? Maybe one of the pros knows why; but I'm sure they don't care to get into an argument over the a technique they use successfully but can't explain succinctly why it works.
Terminology can cause difficulty with many people who (for lack of a better analogy) are more interested in the letter of the law than justice. I am not attacking you or anyone else but am attempting to share another perspective about absolutes. Many people say "accelerate the cue stick through the cue ball". Good players and good teachers have suggested this technique but some of us know that it is impossible to accelerate the cue stick through the cue ball. It is the attempt, in my opinion to accelerate the cue ball that gives the favorable outcome of the stroke and saying that you cannot acclerate the cue stick through the cue ball without explanation that the attempt is a positive one is unjust to the player.
Another technique for shooting certain shots is to "hold the cue tip" on to the cue ball for an extra but short period of time. While many people claim that the cue tip stays on the ball for a 1/1000th of a second or whatever the number is, an attempt to hold the cue tip on the cue ball for a longer period of time, yields a different response and outcome of the shot. And who knows, maybe the tip does stay on the cue ball for a longer period of time OR NOT but the attempt seems to make a difference and while the difference may be negligible from a number standpoint and maybe it isn't, you can't argue with the results.
Maybe these minute adjustments make all the differences in the world.
JoeyA (can't stand Absolute either)
Andrew Manning said:
True, there's no way to avoid using side english, and, if you play 9-ball, you'll probably find yourself using it several times per rack, as you stated. The thing I have always said to people is to stay as close to the vertical axis of the cb as often as possible. The reasons are the same ones you mentioned. My personal experience with side spin was that, after I learned how to pocket balls while using it, I wanted to use it all of the time, and I became heavily dependent upon it. After a few years, I began to feel that I was overly-sensitive to changes in conditions and equipment, and the main culprit seemed to be an excessive use of side spin.
It was only when I started to try to limit the amount of side spin I was using that I discovered that many of the shots that I thought required side spin really didn't require it at all. Cut shots with outside spin, for instance, was one area where I made major changes. If you're cutting a ball, and you need a small amount of outside spin, you might be able to get by with a near center ball hit because of the outside spin you'll pick up off of the ob; throw in a little draw, and you have a more dramatic effect. All in all, I would guess that I was able to eliminate, or at least dramatically cut back, side spin on 20 to 30 percent of the shots that I thought required it, and I still find myself using less side spin each year.
It would be good to get some expert input on this, but I would guess that most people progress through a similar bell-curve situation with side spin. They discover it, begin to use it, begin to overuse it to a certain degree, and then start to taper it back some. Is there anything you can tell a person to help them progress through this more quickly? Maybe not, but I still make an effort when asked for help.
Aaron