Shane and Mosconi- Could the wrong way be the right way???

B

bigskyblue

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I'd like some of you instructors to comment on an observation.

Many pool books and instructors on this website state that the stroke arm should be at (90) degree angle (perpendicular to the table), when the cue strikes the cue ball.

The following famous pool players all "seem to be" striking the cue ball with their
stroke arms ahead of the (90) degree perpendicular.

Shane Vanboening -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOQDEIfVvOE
Willie Mosconi-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItPxJuAoimE (see at 7 min 16 sec)
Mike Sigal-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSMSdW6d5y0
Oliver Ortman-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcquCQEjHHs
Neils Frijen-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRQVO1Jo2Bo
Irving Crane-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlxOU6a0dwM

If these "Famous Champions" strike the cue ball..... AHEAD OF THE PERPENDICULAR....maybe we're missing out on this "magic technique"
 
Hi,

success does not lie in mimicking others without knowing the insights.
All players do 10000s of strokes per week and a certain personal style has developed. This does not mean that there is magic happening or you should do it exactly as them.

Strong foundations are important as they take the physics of the game into consideration -- later on you can develop a consistent personal style.

Don't believe in any magic, please.
MG
 
just think how much better they would play if their arm WAS at 90 degrees....:D
i am not an instructor and look forward to their comments
just couldnt resist
 
90 degrees

bigskyblue said:
I'd like some of you instructors to comment on an observation.

Many pool books and instructors on this website state that the stroke arm should be at (90) degree angle (perpendicular to the table), when the cue strikes the cue ball.

The following famous pool players all "seem to be" striking the cue ball with their
stroke arms ahead of the (90) degree perpendicular.

Shane Vanboening -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOQDEIfVvOE
Willie Mosconi-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItPxJuAoimE (see at 7 min 16 sec)
Mike Sigal-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSMSdW6d5y0
Oliver Ortman-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcquCQEjHHs
Neils Frijen-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRQVO1Jo2Bo
Irving Crane-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlxOU6a0dwM

If these "Famous Champions" strike the cue ball..... AHEAD OF THE PERPENDICULAR....maybe we're missing out on this "magic technique"
Click to expand...

Actually, it's 90 degrees to the cue, not the table.

But you are correct that many players over the years have employed a different method. The important thing is it's not "one size fits all".

Instructors can show a student what works for most players, based on logic and success.
 
FranCrimi said:
I think a better question would be, how many of those players do it intentionally?
Click to expand...

Yes... Or did they subconsciously find their own way to what was & worked 'best for them' as individuals, which we all are?

Your golf swing is not my golf swing, but we both might shoot par golf.

Well, maybe you. My body is too busted up.:wink:

Then again, you may be shooting bogey golf & if I see something that is an inhibiting road block & explain to you how to remove it, you then might shoot par or 1/2 way between par & bogey.

Like Butch Harmon has said, 'I may not be able to build a Championship Swing... but if am not careful I know I can ruin one.'.

Just to be clear, this is NOT a knock on instruction. It certainly has it's place & instructors can be very good at trouble shooting potential faults due to their experience in both time spent & the numbers of issues that they have seen.

The point that I am trying to make is that one size shoe does not fit everyone.

Like Mr Donny said, certain methods may work for 'most' (is that 51%?) but that does not mean that they are best for everyone. The problem comes in that how does one 'know' what method is 'best' for any individual. The method should fit the individual & the individual should not be made to fit the method.

There really is no substitute for experience... that is, unless it is an immense amount of raw talent & even then the lack of experience can jump up & bite.

Just my nickel. I'm not a pool instructor, but I have coached (& taught) the 3 major sports along with golf & I was offered a job teaching tennis that I rather regrettably turned down as a young man.

So like bigshyblue suggested, is the current trend in stroke instruction better than the way that so many great players found their way to using?

Is it a median method that must be modified for significant improvement to get to a higher level?

I'd be very interested in hearing your thoughts on the subject, Fran.

Sorry my long nickel.
 
Last edited:
ENGLISH! said:
Yes... Or did they subconsciously find their own way to what was & worked 'best for them' as individuals, which we all are?

Your golf swing is not my golf swing, but we both might shoot par golf.

Well, maybe you. My body is too busted up.:wink:

Then again, you may be shooting bogey golf & if I see something that is an inhibiting road block & explain to you how to remove it, you then might shoot par or 1/2 way between par & bogey.

Like Butch Harmon has said, 'I may not be able to build a Championship Swing... but if am not careful I know I can ruin one.'.

Just to be clear, this is NOT a knock on instruction. It certainly has it's place & instructors can be very good at trouble shooting potential faults due to their experience in both time spent & the numbers of issues that they have seen.

The point that I am trying to make is that one size shoe does not fit everyone.

Like Mr Donny said, certain methods may work for 'most' (is that 51%?) but that does not mean that they are best for everyone. The problem comes in that how does one 'know' what method is 'best' for any individual. The method should fit the individual & the individual should not be made to fit the method.

There really is no substitute for experience... that is, unless it is an immense amount of raw talent & even then the lack of experience can jump up & bite.

Just my nickel. I'm not a pool instructor, but I have coached (& taught) the 3 major sports along with golf & I was offered a job teaching tennis that I rather regrettably turned down as a young man.

So like bigshyblue suggested, is the current trend in stroke instruction better than the way that so many great players found their way to using?

Is it a median method that must be modified for significant improvement to get to a higher level?

I'd be very interested in hearing your thoughts on the subject, Fran.

Sorry my long nickel.
Click to expand...

I think it's a subject worthy of debate, however at this point I think there are too many unknowns, at least there are for me to enter into a debate.

The first question I would want answered is whether or not they are doing it intentionally. The reason I would ask that is because players occasionally fall into lining up the cue a bit too far from the cue ball.

Some may do it intentionally, and some may fall into it but I'm not sure if it's optimal or if they just got used to it. There could also be a subconscious maneuver to shorten the follow- through. I don't know.

That's what I mean by too many unknowns for me to weigh in with any opinion.
 
Last edited:
FranCrimi said:
I think it's a subject worthy of debate, however at this point I think there are too many unknowns, at least there are for me to enter into a debate.

The first question I would want answered is whether or not they are doing it intentionally. The reason I would ask that is because players occasionally fall into lining up the cue a bit too far from the cue ball.

Some may do it intentionally, and some may fall into it but I'm not sure if it's optimal or if they just got used to it. There could also be a subconscious maneuver to shorten the follow- through. I don't know.

That's what I mean by too many unknowns for me to weigh in with any opinion.
Click to expand...

Thanks Fran.

I would tend to agree that whether one does it intentionally as in being taught to do so or copied another or came upon it subconsciously or through trial & error would make a significant differences to any proper conclusions.

Thanks again.
 
what about this analogy: by using the "90 degree" style, you could develop a truly consistent stroke in say 4000 hours, but hitting in front of 90-degrees would take you 5000 hours....

which one would you choose?
 
michael4 said:
what about this analogy: by using the "90 degree" style, you could develop a truly consistent stroke in say 4000 hours, but hitting in front of 90-degrees would take you 5000 hours....

which one would you choose?
Click to expand...

That is not an analogy but instead is a made up hypothetical with NOTHING to support it.

To me the questions are why does one that is NOT TOLD what to do naturally gravitate to a particular method. Then why did more than one do it? Then why were they at the top or near the top of the game in their time?

To be clear, I am not opposed to hitting the ball at 90*, but what I don't like is the full pendulum finish with the hand going up & the tip going down.

IMHO, the cue should be moved as closely to straight as can be in a piston fashion, as the instrument is straight & we use the end of it & not the side like a baseball bat, tennis racket or golf club. Those use a rotary type motion that has an arc.

There is no real logic in my opinion to move the hand that connects to the cue in an arc like a pendulum. The only reason I see is that it is easy to teach. To me it is a contrived method mainly for that purpose.

The keep it simple by taking the elbow out does not really float & is NOT the natural thing to do as keeping it still while everything below it is moving is not a natural thing to do.

Perhaps that is why those that were NOT TOLD what to do did not naturally gravitate to that method.

Naturally, all of the above is just how I see things & I am not an instructor as I make clear in my sig line.

As for me & my stroke, my elbow lowers in my back stroke, rises again before striking the ball & then lowers during & after contact, but... the cue stick moves in a straight line or very very near to it & to me THAT should be the goal & the focus.

But... to each their own. One size does not fit all.

I, for one, do not want my tip arcing downward for an intended top or middle hit. Perhaps it's okay for hitting low but why a different approach when going straight through would seem to be the most natural & most consistent, given that straight has no variance while arcs do, depending on what is where in the arc.

Just some food for thought.
 
Last edited:
bigskyblue said:
It appears that Earl Strickland "ALSO PLAYS AHEAD OF THE PERPENDICULAR".

Check out his stroke arm at (42:50) into the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpaoaRMA1OY

I'm just sayin'
Click to expand...

A thing to also note is the elbow drop & the amount of elbow drop. The hand at the connection to the cue does not come up at contact but moves much more in a straight line & hence the tip moves through the ball much more on a straight line than had if the hand did come up. The longer the stroke the more the hand & the elbow move. He does not play with the same length stroke for every shot. Doing that, playing with the same length stroke for every shot, to me, is counter intuitive. That, to me, would be like trying to bunt, punch a single, or execute a hit & run with one's all out home run type swing. I know that is not the best, perfect analogy & perhaps a golf analogy would be better, but I think it makes the point.

I believe CJ Wiley referred to it as playing in front of one's body as opposed to playing behind one's body, or at least that is the feeling.
 
Rick...Once again you show your total ignorance of what a pendulum stroke is and how it works. It is the most natural way to deliver the cue accurately.

There is all the logic in the world why this is not only an acceptable method, but also a preferred method for many players. You are as obtuse in your inability to grasp the basic nature of this kind of stroke, as you are in most of the rest of the misinformation you post.

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com

ENGLISH! said:
To be clear, I am not opposed to hitting the ball at 90*, but what I don't like is the full pendulum finish with the hand going up & the tip going down.

There is no real logic in my opinion to move the hand that connects to the cue in an arc like a pendulum. The only reason I see is that it is easy to teach. To me it is a contrived method mainly for that purpose.

I, for one, do not want my tip arcing downward for an intended top or middle hit. Perhaps it's okay for hitting low but why a different approach when going straight through would seem to be the most natural & most consistent, given that straight has no variance while arcs do, depending on what is where in the arc.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top