This will probably get me in trouble --- Seems to me that when you watch the videos of the older players (1940s and 50s) that the tables they played on had much bigger pockets. I think the game has changed substantially with newer cloth, rails and pockets. In my thinking the Snooker players have it right. First you have to have accuracy then you get position. This means that I need to be much lower (like a snooker player) on the stick. Finishing with your stick grounding on your chest, and a shorter back swing are all part of routine for developing a high level of consistency.
I wonder how high a run people like Crane and Balis and others would have had on a 12’ snooker table? Perhaps someone knows?
While I tend to agree with Mullyman's thoughts I also think that some ways are better than others and that a high level of consistency requires substantial study by each player and this means studying several different ways to play. I find it surprising that more players don't study their ability based on various methods. It takes little to compare different strokes, tips, aiming methods, etc and then derive quantitative estimates. I don't think it is so much a matter of what one "likes" it is a matter of what works.
