Quick question re distance from the cue ball at address

I'd like to take this opportunity to say that it seems that many times here on AZB that some give 'advice' assuming that everyone is using the same type stoke & that the set up should be the same for everyone. That's simply not how it is in the real world &, to me, is a mistake that is often made here on AZB.

Some say that 'we' should not emulate the greats & they attach a variety of 'reasons'. Well guess what, at one time the greats were beginners too & they evolved into great players. If it, whatever it is that works for them, then why can't it or shouldn't it work for 'us' too?

In most physical activities, one movement depends or is associated with another. So to emulate one aspect of another may not work well or... it may also cause the dependent or associated other movement to also come into play.

One will never evolve into a better player without some experimentation & one can not be taught to be a great player. That does not mean that lessons are a bad thing. But one should make one's own decisions & one has to throw out what does not fit them & not wear someone else's 'clothes'. But... one can wear a shirt like Efren & a pair of pants like Earl. Or...at least they can try them on & see how they fit.

Naturally all this is just how I see things & are just my opinions.

Best to ALL,
Rick
 
Last edited:
ENGLISH! said:
I'd like to take this opportunity to say that it seems that many times here on AZB that some give 'advice' assuming that everyone is using the same type stoke & that the set up should be the same for everyone. That's simply not how it is in the real world &, to me, is mistake that is often made here on AZB.

Some say that 'we' should not emulate the greats & they attach a variety of 'reasons'. Well guess what, at one time the greats were beginners too & they evolved into great players. If it, whatever it is that works for them, then why can't it or shouldn't it work for 'us' too?

In most physical activities, one movement depends or is associated with another. So to emulate one aspect of another may not work well or... it may also cause the dependent or associated other movement to also come into play.

One will never evolve into a better player without some experimentation & one can not be taught to be a great player. That does not mean that lessons are a bad thing. But one should make one's own decisions & one has to throw out what does not fit them & not wear someone else's 'clothes'. But... one can wear a shirt like Efren & a pair of pants like Earl. Or...at least they try can them on & see how they fit.

Naturally all this is just how I see things & are just my opinions.

Best to ALL,
Rick
Click to expand...



The best players are great in spite of their unorthodox fundamentals, not because of them. They overcame their flaws by putting in a ton of hours. For the rest of us that don't play 10 hours a day, it's better to just keep things simple and go by the "book"

I've mentioned his name a few times here, but Judd Trump is a great example of someone with textbook fundamentals. He is proof that one doesn't need to drop their elbow, twist their wrist, bob their head, etc. to get great action on the CB. He can go shot for shot with anyone in the world, and all he does on a vast majority of his shots is move his forearm and stay down on the shot. Sure he drops his elbow on some shots, but nobody is absolutely perfect.
 
I think there are exceptions to most things. I believe that there are some successful players who place their tip farther away at address than most players do.

But when determining what is appropriate for a player, it's important to understand why that player is cueing that particular way. Is it a visual issue or is it because they never thought to place the tip closer?

Usually with beginner players, the second reason is the more logical one ---although, there certainly are exceptions.
 
BeiberLvr said:
The best players are great in spite of their unorthodox fundamentals, not because of them. They overcame their flaws by putting in a ton of hours. For the rest of us that don't play 10 hours a day, it's better to just keep things simple and go by the "book"

I've mentioned his name a few times here, but Judd Trump is a great example of someone with textbook fundamentals. He is proof that one doesn't need to drop their elbow, twist their wrist, bob their head, etc. to get great action on the CB. He can go shot for shot with anyone in the world, and all he does on a vast majority of his shots is move his forearm and stay down on the shot. Sure he drops his elbow on some shots, but nobody is absolutely perfect.
Click to expand...


A rather long post edited down to the following:

You missed the point of my post & I doubt that you are open to the consideration that there are no 'real' fundamentals. There are only fundamentals that are specific to each individual.

One size does not fit all for a variety of reasons.
 
ENGLISH! said:
A rather long post edited down to the following:

You missed the point of my post & I doubt that you are open to the consideration that there are no 'real' fundamentals. There are only fundamentals that are specific to each individual.

One size does not fit all for a variety of reasons.
Click to expand...

The only reason for this is pool tables are very generous.

While there may be minor differences, all modern day snooker players are cut from pretty much the same mold. Not by choice, but by necessity. Look at Earl's poor performance at the Chinese 8 Ball event. His fundamentals are fine for pool tables, but it's all downhill when the pockets get smaller.
 
BeiberLvr said:
The only reason for this is pool tables are very generous.

While there may be minor differences, all modern day snooker players are cut from pretty much the same mold. Not by choice, but by necessity. Look at Earl's poor performance at the Chinese 8 Ball event. His fundamentals are fine for pool tables, but it's all downhill when the pockets get smaller.
Click to expand...

I basically disagree with your first statement as it is made in a very general way & definitively as you usually do. By that, I mean if we set up a pool table with the same pocket margin for error as a snooker table, I don't think your conclusion would be necessarily correct.

That said, we can have some common ground here. So please focus on that? But... what I say might not be taken well by some.

Yes. Earl is very much a spinner of the ball. I've found that there are certain 'fundamentals', or a lack there of, that are more conducive to getting the ball to move & there are certain 'fundamentals' that are more conducive to an accuracy that somewhat limits or restrains the movement of the ball. (CJ has made a few statements suggesting things along this line but the vitriol came out before he could even elaborate.)

Perhaps that is at least partly why the snookers players of the past have struggled with pool & vise versa.

I'm not really referring to stroke 'form' differences here & I don't really have any science to support my thoughts. It's just what I've come to 'feel'. It's not that one can't be done with what I've come to consider to be more conducive to the other.

But... it is more of a frequency of success or perhaps it trends more to the ability to reach the maximum effect of each & still be successful.

I know this sounds like jiberish because I am not giving out any of my actual specific thoughts & I'm not ready to do so, especially given the atmosphere here on AZB lately.

But...I am basically agreeing with you here, at least to some extent. The requirement of focus for snooker is accuracy even though moving the ball at times is 'required'. That said, there is the ONE Game of Snooker.

For some of the MANY games of pool, moving the ball is of some considerable importance while still maintaining the 'accuracy' that the table requires, what ever level that is.

I would certainly think that it is easier to maintain the accuracy of one's game if one only plays ONE game. If that one game requires accuracy over moving the ball then one focuses on accuracy & hence one becomes more proficient in accuracy.

If most of the games that one plays needs movement of the ball, one focuses on that possibly at the expense of some accuracy.

As to Earl, one needs to remember & should consider that he is not young & is not in the very best of health although not that bad AND he traveled 1/2 way around the world.
 
Last edited:
ENGLISH! said:
I basically disagree with your first statement as it is made in a very general way & definitively as you usually do. By that, I mean if we set up a pool table with the same pocket margin for error as a snooker table, I don't think your conclusion would be necessarily correct.

That said, we can have some common ground here. So please focus on that? But... what I say might not be taken well by some.

Yes. Earl is very much a spinner of the ball. I've found that there are certain 'fundamentals', or a lack there of, that are more conducive to getting the ball to move & there are certain 'fundamentals' that are more conducive to an accuracy that somewhat limits or restrains the movement of the ball.

Perhaps that is at least partly why the snookers players of the past have struggled with pool & vise versa.

I'm not really referring to stroke form differences here & I don't really have any science to support my thoughts. It's just what I've come to 'feel'. It's not that one can't be done with what I've come to consider to be more conducive to the other.

But... it is more of a frequency of success or perhaps it trends more to the ability to reach the maximum effect of each & still be successful.

I know this sounds like jiberish because I am not giving out any of my actual thoughts & I'm not ready to do so, especially given the atmosphere here on AZB lately.

But...I am basically agreeing with you here, at least to some extent. The requirement of focus for snooker is accuracy even though moving the ball at times is 'required'. There is THE one Game of Snooker.

For some of the 'many' games of pool, moving the ball is of some considerable importance while still maintaining the 'accuracy' that the table requires what ever level that is.

I would certainly think that it is easier to maintain the accuracy of one's game if one only plays one game. If that one game requires accuracy over moving the ball then one focuses on accuracy & hence one becomes more proficient in accuracy.

If most of the games that one plays needs movement of the ball, one focuses on that possibly at the expense of some accuracy.

As to Earl, on needs to remember & should consider that he is not young & is not in the very best of health although not that bad AND he traveled 1/2 way around the world.
Click to expand...

Dennis Orcullo is a younger and better player than Earl is today, and while he did better, he still struggled on those tables. I don't think any snooker player has ever struggled with pool, so I'm not sure why you would make that statement. Maybe at first they struggle with the break and shot selection, but the actual pocketing of balls and moving the CB all around is cake.

Darren Appleton, Jayson Shaw, Daryl Peach, Chris Melling, and others have all cut their teeth on really tough tables. They (especially Appleton and Shaw) seem to have adapted to pool quite nicely.

Not sure what Earl being a "ball spinner" has to do with anything. To me, it sounds like you've never really watched snooker, because if you had, then you would know all the top players are more than capable of spinning the white. In fact, being able to change the angles using spin is a requirement on a lot of shots.

As far as you believing that there is a set of fundamentals that's better at getting the CB to move and a certain set for accuracy. Well that's just untrue, but I won't tell you to stop doing what you're doing. Personally, I would rather just have fundamentals that allow me to do both.

I don't mean to say that snooker fundamentals are the be all end all. If you've ever watched any of the Taiwanese players, they have what I consider pool/snooker fundamentals. I put John Morra in the same category, and those fundamentals work well on easy and tough tables. My whole point on our tables being generous is more than proven when you see countless times where a player hits the 2nd diamond and still makes the ball. Stuff like that just doesn't happen when the tables are more difficult, and the reason they hit the 2nd diamond is simple.

Poor fundamentals, but our tables allow us to get away with it... a lot.
 
BeiberLvr said:
Dennis Orcullo is a younger and better player than Earl is today, and while he did better, he still struggled on those tables. I don't think any snooker player has ever struggled with pool, so I'm not sure why you would make that statement. Maybe at first they struggle with the break and shot selection, but the actual pocketing of balls and moving the CB all around is cake.

Darren Appleton, Jayson Shaw, Daryl Peach, Chris Melling, and others have all cut their teeth on really tough tables. They (especially Appleton and Shaw) seem to have adapted to pool quite nicely.

Not sure what Earl being a "ball spinner" has to do with anything. To me, it sounds like you've never really watched snooker, because if you had, then you would know all the top players are more than capable of spinning the white. In fact, being able to change the angles using spin is a requirement on a lot of shots.

As far as you believing that there is a set of fundamentals that's better at getting the CB to move and a certain set for accuracy. Well that's just untrue, but I won't tell you to stop doing what you're doing. Personally, I would rather just have fundamentals that allow me to do both.

I don't mean to say that snooker fundamentals are the be all end all. If you've ever watched any of the Taiwanese players, they have what I consider pool/snooker fundamentals. I put John Morra in the same category, and those fundamentals work well on easy and tough tables. My whole point on our tables being generous is more than proven when you see countless times where a player hits the 2nd diamond and still makes the ball. Stuff like that just doesn't happen when the tables are more difficult, and the reason they hit the 2nd diamond is simple.

Poor fundamentals, but our tables allow us to get away with it... a lot.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the civil exchange. I won't go through your points as there is no real purpose but I will say just a few things.

Balls do not go off the rail on a Diamond table with less than 4" pockets at the hall I frequent & not even with helping spin & pocket speed.

But what you say sort of supports my points to some extent in that there are no standards for pool, not even the table nor the pockets. It also supports your point as snooker tables consistently require accuracy.

That said, IF a ball goes into the pocket from off the rail at a diamond... or two, I'm going to shoot some shots just that way to aid in position play & because a miss on the other side will definitely result in a miss. So...just because you see balls dropping that way does NOT mean that the player is inaccurate. They may be simply playing the table.

I hope you can at least see some of what I'm saying.

Also, consider this. There was a time when there was more money in pool here in this country than there was in snooker over there & there were several very good snooker players that tried to come here & be successful to get some of that money. None of them really made it. Now the reverse is true. The games are different & when there is a difference one needs something different.

Nolan Ryan could throw a baseball rather well but I'm not so sure he could throw a pear as well. I think Peyton Manning would be better at throw a pear. They both throw with their arm & they both throw overhand. But there is a difference in throwing a baseball & a football...and a pear.

Edit: Allison Fisher certainly made it on pool tables.
 
Last edited:
ENGLISH! said:
Thanks for the civil exchange. I won't go through your points as there is no real purpose but I will say just a few things.

Balls do not go off the rail on a Diamond table with less than 4" pockets at the hall I frequent & not even with helping spin & pocket speed.

But what you say sort of supports my points to some extent in that there are no standards for pool, not even the table nor the pockets. It also supports your point as snooker tables consistently require accuracy.o

That said, IF a ball goes into the pocket from off the rail at a diamond... or two, I'm going to shoot some shots just that way to aid in position play & because a miss on the other side will definitely result in a miss. So...just because you see balls dropping that way does NOT mean that the player is inaccurate. They may be simply playing the table.

I hope you can at least see some of what I'm saying.

Also, consider this. There was a time when there was more money in pool here in this country than there was in snooker over there & there were several very good snooker players that tried to come here & be successful to get some of that money. None of them really made it. Now the reverse is true. The games are different & when there is a difference one needs something different.

Nolan Ryan could throw a baseball rather well but I'm not so sure he could throw a pear as well. I think Peyton Manning would be better at throw a pear. They both throw with their arm & they both throw overhand. But there is a difference in throwing a baseball & a football...and a pear.
Click to expand...

While I won't make my usual definitive statement, I firmly disagree with the point in bold. I do not believe any pro would purposely play an object ball into the first or second diamond, and my reasoning for this belief is rather simple.

Just because a ball can be made after hitting the first or second diamond, it does not mean that it will. I truly believe any top player would prefer to just make the ball cleanly.

I do agree with you that this exchange was at least civil for once, and while we still disagree on most of the discussion, that's not necessarily a bad thing.

I'm done for now though. Until next time.

Jon
 
BeiberLvr said:
While I won't make my usual definitive statement, I firmly disagree with the point in bold. I do not believe any pro would purposely play an object ball into the first or second diamond, and my reasoning for this belief is rather simple.

Just because a ball can be made after hitting the first or second diamond, it does not mean that it will. I truly believe any top player would prefer to just make the ball cleanly.

I do agree with you that this exchange was at least civil for once, and while we still disagree on most of the discussion, that's not necessarily a bad thing.

I'm done for now though. Until next time.

Jon
Click to expand...

I might be able to agree that in general one would not aim for two diamonds from the pocket BUT if the table IS that loose & the player knows that a ball can go I can certainly see a situation coming up where with that knowledge a player would shoot it that way. Preference & what one does are not always the same thing.

Just as you find it difficult to believe that a pro would shoot it that way, I find it difficult that any top level pro would miss by that amount unless someone bumped into him or her in mid stroke, or they sneezed.

When playing on loose equipment & one sees balls dropping like we are discussing either from their opponent or from 'misses' going in, the subconscious can start to influence to what side one might shade a shot. As I said missing the pocket on the other side is a sure mis. I have found my subconscious doing just that when coming from a Brunswick that say has 4 1/2" pockets to a Diamond with 4" pockets. I have to make a conscious effort to NOT shade the rail side & target just the pocket side of the point.

Again, I thank you for the civil exchange & disagreements do not have to be uncivil.

Rick
 
Last edited:
English,

I totally get your point about one size does NOT fit all advice is how to dispense advice here. Believe me, my goal when I respond to posts here at AZ (and I don't respond as often as I used to because I try to be more clear in general and less argumentative in general) is to give universals if I don't know the specifics rather than sound like a mad pool scientist with pet theories.

Regarding the tip gap thing, yes, one size is not fits all, but remember, I have the luxury at times of watching a student hit five good shots than miss one and over again, and I noticed a weird thing a while back that could help a lot of teachers in their lessons, not just me--some of my players were doing this kind of pattern of make some, miss some and every miss was a long tip gap and a lunge. Tip gap isn't always the only problem but it is a problem IMO.
 
BilliardsAbout said:
English,

I totally get your point about one size does NOT fit all advice is how to dispense advice here. Believe me, my goal when I respond to posts here at AZ (and I don't respond as often as I used to because I try to be more clear in general and less argumentative in general) is to give universals if I don't know the specifics rather than sound like a mad pool scientist with pet theories.

Regarding the tip gap thing, yes, one size is not fits all, but remember, I have the luxury at times of watching a student hit five good shots than miss one and over again, and I noticed a weird thing a while back that could help a lot of teachers in their lessons, not just me--some of my players were doing this kind of pattern of make some, miss some and every miss was a long tip gap and a lunge. Tip gap isn't always the only problem but it is a problem IMO.
Click to expand...

Matt,

What 'form' of stroke were they using?

The thing is if one is using a full 'pendulum' stroke where the tip arcs down on the back stroke & up on the forward stroke to contact & down again through & past contact, then a consistent & close to the ball tip position of the tip with as near as perfect a set up as possible is more crucial.

If one is using a more piston like stroke where the stick is moving more consistently in a 'straight' line, then the tip being very near the cue ball in the set up is NOT as crucial.

Regarding the scenario you presented of make, make, make, make, miss & then repeated again, if I had to hazard a guess, I would guess that the position of the cue ball on the table is what causes them to not be able to get into that near perfect set up position that is required for the stroke that they are trying to use were the tip being very close to the CB along with that near perfect set up is so crucial.

My one size does not fit all reference was made regarding that many times if not nearly everytime that advice is given out here on AZB by some if not many there is an assumption made that the player is using a full pendulum type stroke when in actuality they may not be doing so. That at times makes some advice not really specifically applicable.

My point is that some if not most advice needs or at least should have some qualifying statements attached instead of making the assumptions of the stroke mechanics being used.

There are those, & I would say way more than most would guess, that 'push' the cue vs pulling the cue.

I hope You can see my points.

Best 2 Ya,
Rick
 
Last edited:
I do see your points, yes. We're talking about a variety of players with different stances, aim systems, strokes, etc. and in general, the tip gap closure was a big help.

Another thought--being a bit more compact onto the cue ball helps some players from over-stroking, following through to excess. Again, taking someone who has played the same way for decades and getting them to "hit" the cue ball a little more without changing their other "tools" is an easy fix in those cases.
 
Veddy interesting example. Thanks for posting. In general, the lower your head/the further back from the cup tip your head is in the stance, the harder it is to see how long your gap is. I like to ask people to freeze as soon as their bridge hand touches cloth to a) confirm b) then lower to finish the stance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top