Power draw shots and dropping the elbow

For what it's worth, in the video posted, drawing back about 8 inches would give perfect position and actually better than the first super draw he did. On the first one he ended up pretty much straight on that ball and we all know that is certain death.
MULLY
 
lee brett said:
im a snooker coach from england and i coach people on how to drop the elbow, ronnie o sullivan was taught this, here is alink of me playing so you can see it in action




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNzbi3Qtl4o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foOp1ge-UwY
Click to expand...

Just went and downloaded the link to see what you do and absolutely must say I'm extremely impressed!!! Though several things are obviously different, as they well should be, from how Mosconi shot when he played straight-pool on 9-foot tables with 5.25-inch corner pockets in the mid fifties, your elbow behaves like his did back then. That was when he was at his very best in my opinion. You have his rhythm as well.

However, I'm not claiming that this is the way just as I'm not claiming it isn't. I just wanted to punch a hole in the notion that one's elbow should always be fixed AND the notion that it is so very important to have less moving parts in the stroke.

You are a perfect example for what I hope to one day explain a bit better in a book on fundamentals; meaning to show how the most important factor is not the having of less moving parts.

Thank you very much for the demo!

Eddie Robin
 
Eddie Robin said:

Well, I finally returned with full plate of spaghetti and sausage expecting to see how badly my post had been attacked and see absolutely nothing! No replies as yet? Wow! Well, I'll tempt fate a bit further and explain a bit more about what has been pushed out there by the experts; if the less moving part was the sole, or even most significant factor, regarding why the stable elbow helps as it does, we wouldn't very easily be able to reach for the wall and stick a finger into a hole--TOO MANY MOVING PARTS!

Now that we have AZ Billiards (serious about that by the way), what the billiard world now needs most is a really good book on fundamentals! No, I'm not pushing a book that is about to be released. I won't be able to get to such a book published for years. I'm just wanting many of you guys to understand that you've been learning from people that just don't even know fundamentals. However, they do have impressive reps and certificates.

Another thing; how many of you guys are learning about strategy in one-pocket yet have never run 50 in 14.1? How many can't even average 75% on spot-shots on the tables you play on? How many have learned trig before long division? Or how many could possibly think about swimming the English Channel before making across a wide river with current? Got my point?

Now I can rest assured that the attack will be here first thing in the morning!

Eddie R
Click to expand...

I generally don't mind engaging anybody here. I have an open mind, and I'm happy to talk about mechanics.

But you just kinda seem like a guy with an attitude trying to pick a fight, imo.
 
Eddie Robin said:

Well, I finally returned with full plate of spaghetti and sausage expecting to see how badly my post had been attacked and see absolutely nothing! No replies as yet? Wow! Well, I'll tempt fate a bit further and explain a bit more about what has been pushed out there by the experts; if the less moving part was the sole, or even most significant factor, regarding why the stable elbow helps as it does, we wouldn't very easily be able to reach for the wall and stick a finger into a hole--TOO MANY MOVING PARTS!

Now that we have AZ Billiards (serious about that by the way), what the billiard world now needs most is a really good book on fundamentals! No, I'm not pushing a book that is about to be released. I won't be able to get to such a book published for years. I'm just wanting many of you guys to understand that you've been learning from people that just don't even know fundamentals. However, they do have impressive reps and certificates.

Another thing; how many of you guys are learning about strategy in one-pocket yet have never run 50 in 14.1? How many can't even average 75% on spot-shots on the tables you play on? How many have learned trig before long division? Or how many could possibly think about swimming the English Channel before making across a wide river with current? Got my point?

Now I can rest assured that the attack will be here first thing in the morning!

Eddie R
Click to expand...

Eddie

To say you have to run 50 in 14.1 before you learn how to play 1P well is a little off-base. I'm not picking a fight with you - I enjoy your posts, but that's an ego-driven comment.

I bet I know about 5 guys who have never run over 50 in 14.1 who would TORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRTURE a huge % of those who have when playing 1P. And I mean TORTURE as in an eskimo bashing in the head of a baby seal. It wouldn't be pretty.

I understand the point you're trying to make and I know why you're trying to make it. Personally, I think everyone should play 14.1 before learning how to play 9-ball but you and I know A) It wont happen and B) There are guys out there who NEVER played 14.1 who can spot me the 5-out... at least. I just don't compare it to learning trig before long division because that's your personal opinion. To some, playing strong rotation pool is the calculus of the pool world (not that I agree, but if they run-out like an alien - who's to argue?).

Dave
 
I gotta take a sec to say that people should give eddie a chance before they jump on the ignore button.

His first handful of posts were made in the straight pool forum and they were not only helpful but exceedingly polite. He makes a point of thanking everyone who says something complimentary (or even just posts agreement/support). Because of this, my first impression of him is that he's super polite and friendly and would make a lot of friends on here.

Now a few people have gotten a different first impression and are talking like he's an argumentative jerk out to stir the pot. It's not like that. He just wants to share his take on things and the statements he's making are not as controversial as they sound.

I think when he says someone should run 50 in straight pool before trying to play serious 1 pocket, he's coming from the old-fashioned assumption that all serious pool players will give 14.1 a serious try at some point. But there are some very strong players who just don't care to try it, they see it as a dead practice game or whatever. They COULD run 50 if they put their mind to it, they just haven't yet.

What he's saying is that high level 1P requires a lot of general pool knowledge (i.e. the amount needed to run 50 in straight pool) or else you'd better shoot awfully straight (i.e. drill 8 out of 10 spot shots all day long). That's not really so offensive, is it?

As for his comments on dropping the elbow... if I'm reading him correctly, he's just a little exasperated at all the (over)analysis that people put into stuff that should be instinctual or common sense. I can see how the analyzers might get offended by that but he prolly has a point anyway.

If you have to power stroke something, your elbow's going to move. There are a thousand little factors we could dissect as to the timing of the elbow movement but in the long run, each player has to just get on the table and figure out their own personal mechanics that can result in that crazy draw action. You can't get it by reading about it and trying to pinpoint on which frame mike massey decided to let his elbow drop.
 
only problem with that vid... we don't even see your elbow and you didn't go 17 feet, more like 7 >_<

Not trying to call you out or anything though, if you can get 1.5 table lengths or more on video (and we can see your elbow) I'm sold.
 
Don't buy Eddie Robin's books?

Neil said:
I bet you never stated that in your one pocket book, did you? "Don't buy this book until you can run 50 in 14.1, and can make better than 75% of your spot shots." I have never bought your book, and now I never will. So far, all you have offered this forum is a willingness to argue. We have enough of those types already. And, to get down on all the other instructors like you have is the height of arrogance. Makes one want to put you on ignore know matter what info you have. Whatever info you do have is had by many, so why put up with your attitude?
Click to expand...

My previous advice for people learning one-pocket prematurely has ranged from getting better at straight-pool first, learning the cushions with experience in one of the carom games, develop fundamentals so can shoot straighter, and so on. I can probably dig up a large number of such advice in emails going back a number of years.

I’ve often advised people not to buy my books until they get better at some other game first because I do care about my readers; more than you know. I've provided many hundreds of hours of free suggestions, advice, and so on, over the phone over the years. I've provided a great many complimentary evaluations for my readers as well; yes free of charge.

Once they buy the book it becomes a bit too late to advise my readers not to do so, but I nevertheless did my best to get them better prepared for the one-pocket game in the preface. I really don’t know if there is more than the following on this particular subject in my Winning One-Pocket book (W1P) and have not even looked at the Shots, Moves, & Strategies (SMS).

If one reads the preface, page ix. “All the co-authors of this book agree that a solid foundation in the basics of pocket billiards should be firmly established before learning the game of one-pocket—in fact, you should attain a degree of expertise at some other form of pool or billiards before trying your hand at this game." The rest of this paragraph goes on in this vein.

Another paragraph in book starts off as follows: "My personal advice to the one-pocket student is to excel at some other form of pool before taking up this game because,” etc., etc., etc."

I can provide a somewhat more extensive defense if had sufficient time, space, and/or desire to do so.

Can we now be somewhat more friendly? Maybe now that you see I’ve really tried my best to do the right thing for others? The reason such advice was in the preface was partially because a potential buyer may read that advice before ever buying the book.

Sincerely,
Eddie Robin
 
mikepage said:
I generally don't mind engaging anybody here. I have an open mind, and I'm happy to talk about mechanics.

But you just kinda seem like a guy with an attitude trying to pick a fight, imo.
Click to expand...

Hi Mike,

Well, your not the only one who dislikes me, that's for sure! I do tend to make waves. And, though I was an undefeated middleweight in the USA Army way back (one of my readers actually remembers seeing one of my fights when we were in Korea, in the 7th Cav), I wouldn't ever even dream of picking a fight, especially now that I'm much older and kinda fragile! However, I'm curious as to exactly why you seem so antagonistic. Am I misunderstanding your quote?

Hope you'll change your mind! Maybe we'll even get to know each other better one of these days.

for a better game,
Eddie Robin
 
Thanks for the defense; stick around I may need more!

CreeDo said:
I gotta take a sec to say that people should give eddie a chance before they jump on the ignore button.

His first handful of posts were made in the straight pool forum and they were not only helpful but exceedingly polite. He makes a point of thanking everyone who says something complimentary (or even just posts agreement/support). Because of this, my first impression of him is that he's super polite and friendly and would make a lot of friends on here.

Now a few people have gotten a different first impression and are talking like he's an argumentative jerk out to stir the pot. It's not like that. He just wants to share his take on things and the statements he's making are not as controversial as they sound.

I think when he says someone should run 50 in straight pool before trying to play serious 1 pocket, he's coming from the old-fashioned assumption that all serious pool players will give 14.1 a serious try at some point. But there are some very strong players who just don't care to try it, they see it as a dead practice game or whatever. They COULD run 50 if they put their mind to it, they just haven't yet.

What he's saying is that high level 1P requires a lot of general pool knowledge (i.e. the amount needed to run 50 in straight pool) or else you'd better shoot awfully straight (i.e. drill 8 out of 10 spot shots all day long). That's not really so offensive, is it?

As for his comments on dropping the elbow... if I'm reading him correctly, he's just a little exasperated at all the (over)analysis that people put into stuff that should be instinctual or common sense. I can see how the analyzers might get offended by that but he prolly has a point anyway.

If you have to power stroke something, your elbow's going to move. There are a thousand little factors we could dissect as to the timing of the elbow movement but in the long run, each player has to just get on the table and figure out their own personal mechanics that can result in that crazy draw action. You can't get it by reading about it and trying to pinpoint on which frame mike massey decided to let his elbow drop.
Click to expand...

Hello again Creedo,

Thanks for the defense; stick around I may need more!

As for the stable-elbow thing, it so happens I have been teaching the stable-elbow to students ever since first learning it from Eddie Kelly around 1968; I believe said he had mentioned learning it several years earlier fron Eddie Taylor. However, I go so far as to teach when the stable-elbow should not be used as well. AND though I have my reasons for not getting much further into this subject, I'm quite confident that I understand what actually is the main reason it has proven itself quite helpful to many; and I'm certainly not referring to "less moving parts."

If "less moving parts" was the thing, or even just the main reason for its value, how does one account for the golfers hitting that tiny ball way down there with all those moving parts starting from the feet all the way up? Doesn't this all make sense to some of you guys out there?

I certainly hope so,

For whatever it was worth (and please just don't let anything I say upset ya--be happy!),

Eddie Robin
 
CreeDo said:
only problem with that vid... we don't even see your elbow and you didn't go 17 feet, more like 7 >_<

Not trying to call you out or anything though, if you can get 1.5 table lengths or more on video (and we can see your elbow) I'm sold.
Click to expand...

Errm you do know that is a 6x12 snooker table ? rest assured my elbow does not drop, I am an honest guy :)
 
Slasher said:
Errm you do know that is a 6x12 snooker table ? rest assured my elbow does not drop, I am an honest guy :)
Click to expand...

I believe you :) It looks like you're going about 3/4ths table length... so about 8 feet of draw. Mike gets 1 and 3/4 tables (on the 9 footer, but still, about twice as much distance).

The main reason I wanted to see the rest of your elbow is it's one of those things where you can't even see your own elbow during the stroke so it's possible you drop it a touch and don't even realize it. Hope I don't seem like a dink by mentioning that. If you do zero drop and can draw 8 feet from 8 feet away, that just goes to show a stable elbow is good enough to do almost any draw shot a pool player will ever need.

I'm on the side of "It's ok if you do drop it a touch", even if it's possible to get big draw without dropping.
 
Actually I am making around 9 feet in the video as the shot is on the diagonal and the object ball is 8" from the pocket, the cue ball returns to about 2-2.5 ft off the top rail.
I am also starting out 8 feet from the object ball, big difference. This is on a much heavier cloth than 860 and a 9 footer is not nine feet between the rails either.
 
Last edited:
Eddie Robin said:
If "less moving parts" was the thing, or even just the main reason for its value, how does one account for the golfers hitting that tiny ball way down there with all those moving parts starting from the feet all the way up?
Click to expand...

In golf, the shorter the shot, the more likely it is that the good player will use fewer moving parts. You see this on pitch shots, chips, and, particularly, putts. Many pros try to eliminate the wrists entirely on putts. But for full-bore power strokes, "all those moving parts" certainly come into play.
 
im writing a book on the fundamentals and everything, breaking the whole cue action down, the geometry and sighting etc, elbow drop and why shooting from the elbow is more accurate and powerful...
 
Do others really agree with this guy? I hope not.

Neil said:
We can try to be more friendly, it's up to you. The above paragraph is what I took offense to mainly. Seems like you are saying that only you are able to teach fundamentals, no one else even knows what they are.

I've really tried my best with you and even made an offer of friendship. And now you continue to twist my words around as you do. Where did I ever say I'm the only one who can teach fundamentals? If you must know, I happen to think I'm the best, but then again, so do many others who I have helped over the years. As for your wording, "no one else even knows what they are," how can you manage to put such words in my mouth. Things I've said and written certainly come out different when they come from you. What exactly is the ax you have to grind?

It so happens that I don't think there is a really good book on billiard fundamentals. Many out there are teaching things like how your forarm is always supposed to be vertical upon impact, rear leg should be locked, cue should be under a dominant eye, its all in the wrist, etc. I could go on and on and on about what students of the game are being fed out there.

One day I will explain a great many things in a book on the subject of fundamentals and many will then understand how many such things happen to be wrong. I had been wavering a bit, you've convinced me that I'd certainly better wait until then, at least when it comes to fundamentals for who knows how many more like you are out there.

And, why be glad we have AZB, when there is nothing but misinformation on it??

Wow! I guess we can't ever be friendly after all. You are purposely putting words in my mouth; it is obviously being done intentionally. Members should of course be glad that AZB exists. I began posting on the AZ because of how impressed I was with its value for learning and for communication purposes and with intentions to provide even more in the future.

Seldom will you find two players that play just alike.

Agreed; so?

Just like there are many ways to play, there are many ways to teach.

Agreed; so?

You want to present a different way, I have no problem with that.

Good!

But for you to say any way different than yours means they don't even know what they are doing is just plain wrong,

There you go again. Where do get this stuff from?

and will not be met kindly on a forum such as this one.

Wow! Are you really speaking for the rest these guys out there? Didn't mean for that question to be an invitation to your friends to echo your words in various posts, but guess such things can't be easily prevented.

It so happens I've already met with more than just a little kindness on this forum. You seem to want to drive a wedge between me and others who might really want to find out what I've got to say. Why? Are the things I'm saying hurting you in some way? Do you make money teaching? You probably know about me but I know nothing about you (but I'm now learning).

for straighter shooting,

Eddie Robin
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
How could "less moving parts" possibly be the main reason?

AtLarge said:
In golf, the shorter the shot, the more likely it is that the good player will use fewer moving parts. You see this on pitch shots, chips, and, particularly, putts. Many pros try to eliminate the wrists entirely on putts. But for full-bore power strokes, "all those moving parts" certainly come into play.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your post on this obviously sensitive subject. Yes, the power strokes would make for the better example and guess I should have been that specific for why use examples that don't show my point nearly as well. Yes, many body parts certainly do all come into play.

I never have played even a single round of golf, and so maybe I should have used the swing of a batter in baseball as an example of how one manages to hit a ball traveling at 80 mph while utilizing a great many moving parts. Actually, I've had almost no experience at baseball either. Anyway, I believe you guys can think of a few activities that require a precision despite a few moving parts. Like how can a boxer manage to hit an opponent's jaw despite so many moving parts? Don't you agree he could certainly do so without fail if his opponent would stand still for just a few seconds?

How could less moving parts even possibly be the MAIN reason? Makes absolutely no sense to me! I can't go along with the notion that it must be true because so many teach it. If it were true, I'd think the batter wouldn't be able to easily hit the ball even if it came in slow at the same place every time. If it were true I'd think it quite difficult to step on thee cracks in the sidewalk; too many moving parts!

I certainly hope some of you can can see what I consider a logical way to look at this thing that so many have previously bought into. Agreement is a really tough thing to go up against. Took a very long time for many "authorities" to finally agree that blood travels around in the body and that the world was actually round.

I may be backing off of these posts for awhile at least. Hope some of you had appreciated my efforts. I tried!

for continual learning and improvement,

Eddie Robin
 
Some thoughts on power draw and the elbow drop.

1. For most draw shots the rear of the cue is slightly elevated and the thrust is initially towards the bed of the table. This reduces the amount of forward thrust and the amount of spin that can be placed on the CB because the cues stick is coming in at an angle and the downward force causes more CB resistance as it travels over the table.
2. Players often place the cue tip extremely low (near the bed of the table) on a power draw. But you can’t really hit the ball this low with out scooping or miscuing.
3. I think the bridge hand is acting like a fulcrum. During the stroke the player’s back hand is starting at a higher angle and reducing the angle as they approach the CB. For some players, such as Mike Massey, the player has learned the best initial starting place for the tip, fulcrum point for the bridge, and how to drop the cue stick (including the elbow) to achieve the maximum level follow through for that very minimal contact time. It comes down to a matter of timing to get the maximum spin and appropriate energy transfer. I would not be surprised to learn through something like Dr Dave’s video analysis that the power draw involves the ability to not only set the max spin but to hit the cb in such a way that it skims the surface and thus meets with very little resistance as it moves down the table. Something like skimming a rock on a pond. This may even involve a slight upward angle when the cue stick strikes the CB
4. Colin Colenso’s power break analysis (and suggestions) suggest that one can get even more power into the shot by using the upper arm and shoulder for additional pivot points, ( see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xW1tsONEI_U )

5. I think that Mike Massey and others with a super power draw are using all of these principles during the stroke.

In summary the elbow drops to get a level cue with max power through the use of pivot points. These old arms can’t do it but I would bet that if some of the younger, well coordinated players experimented with these pivot points their power draw could equal Mike’s. After all there are physical limitations and Mike seems to indicate where some of them are.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top