This game IMO is so sensitive, and susceptible to any tiny variation, be it mental or physical, it's like a house of cards. If any one thing is in question, all the others are at risk.Truer words were never spoken. You have to watch out for compensations that will tend to creep into your fundamentals when things start to go wrong. Then before you know it, you find yourself in a full-blown slump...
I think that I will get these words engraved on my case or arm or somewhere.
But they beg the question: exactly how do you effectively watch out for these compensations? In my experience, they tend to happen so subtly and insideously that they are on you before you know it!
But perhaps a subject for a different thread - I am not trying to hijack this one!:embarrassed2:
I'm sorry. I don't understand what you mean by your response. I think it means that you want to go last. So, you're asking people who teach to share their knowledge here for free, and then you will evaluate it?
FWIW, I won't outline the entire thing here. Plus, I think Fran makes a good point. It's one thing to make a post and say, "This is what I teach, this is why I teach it, here is why it is effective, I am interested in knowing how my method compares to what others teach, etc etc..."
Not everything I come up with is correct - I know that - so I bounce ideas off of other instructors to get opinions and feedback prior to employing new teaching methods. Having those opinions available to me is a priceless asset. The relationships that I have with other instructors is worth much more to my students than anything I can teach them.
You kind of phrased your questions as if you were setting up pins to knock them down (that's how I took it). That may or may not have been your intention - however I volunteered to test the bait and tug the line. So, the bait's gone and I sit here with the hook stuck in my mouth, and you're basically asking me to reel myself in.
???
Your tone is coming across as arrogant. As I said before, I could be misinterpreting that - if I am, I apologize - I'm just reading words on a screen. However, you are not communicating well enough to get the responses that you were after, are you?
Also, I'm not sure why you believe that you need two separate threads for all of this, it would probably be a wise move to keep all of this information in one thread for easy reference. JMO. Either way, I am always interested in bouncing ideas around and learning new methods from other teachers.
Perfect alignment is achieved when the stick can freely move all the way back and forward following up to the joint in a straight line.
This exaggerated follow through is achieved by shoulder drop. The classical snooker stance aids in this alignment.
The benefit of the shoulder drop is added power. However, the most important benefit is the instantaneous feedback for the alignment.
If the cue goes off the rail the initial alignment was off. It is not necessary to follow to the joint but shoulder drop shows errors in alignment.
On small surfaces such as 3.5 x 7’ the alignment is less critical on a large tables it is everything.
I would say that a good starting point would be to have your head, shoulder, elbow, grip hand and bridge hand all on the same plane as the cue. But, since all individuals are different, even this could require some fine tuning.
IOW, you are asking for a specific answer to a question that still has variables.
I don't think that your normal stance (as opposed to a breaking stance) needs to be one that allows an exaggerated follow through. It only needs to permit the length of follow through that you are going to use in your game.
Furthermore (I expect a number of people will disagree with me on this) for those who have a long follow through, I don't think it matters if the last bit of it is not straight. If the first 4? or so inches are straight, then I doubt whether any deviation after than indicates a stroke problem.
Trying to develop a stance that gives an exaggerated long follow through is a mistake IMHO. I would look for perfection elswhere.
I don't think that your normal stance (as opposed to a breaking stance) needs to be one that allows an exaggerated follow through. It only needs to permit the length of follow through that you are going to use in your game.
Furthermore (I expect a number of people will disagree with me on this) for those who have a long follow through, I don't think it matters if the last bit of it is not straight. If the first 4? or so inches are straight, then I doubt whether any deviation after than indicates a stroke problem.
Trying to develop a stance that gives an exaggerated long follow through is a mistake IMHO. I would look for perfection elswhere.
I don’t think that the stance should be geared towards exaggerated follow.
It just a proper alignment will let you do that if you desire to do so.
If your stroke is not straight after contact was made then odds are very good it wasn’t straight at the contact either.
The pure pendulum stroke with no elbow drop is ok on short distances. It is an easy and repeatable movement. It is easy to teach.
It can be executed even with poor alignment, and that’s both good and bad. However, there are limitations to that kind of a stroke.
There is a reason why top male players are elbow droppers.
I've never heard of a stroke instructor. Now I have heard of billiard instructors, some of which, teach same style of stroking.
Unlless you post your beliefs, you are just trolling. I don't have the same ideas as most about pool, but at least I'm man enough to write what I believe.
Case in point.....The ole glass of water, filled to the halfway mark. Depending on how you view the glass, half full, half, empty is suspose to determine your overall outlook. Half full=optimist, half empty=pessimist.
Well, there is also the point of view that the glass is just too big. Thats a realist outlook.
How does this apply here? Simple. I compare what is being written here about proper alignment, head here, shoulder here, elbow here and so on to what I have experinced playing 14.1, 8 ball, last pocket 8ball, 9 ball, 1 pocket.
So, my first thought was what shot you talking? The shot makes all the difference on how you use the cue.
Then I think how can you do this simple little shot ,on a 9 ft table, using the alignment that has been described so far. I'm a right handed shooter. I've done this doing behind the back, one handed and with the bridge. All which require a different type of stroke alignment and stroke.
There are more of these type of shots where you can not get into what I call the normal stance. The stroke alignment styles, so far, seem to be geared for this stance and really does not cover all the different shot possiblites and the stance those require.
So, to really answer your challenge, post up the shots you are talking about. This is the only fair way, cause I bet, the BILLIARD instructors will have a more specfic answer base on a specfic style of shot and not try to answer some random challenge that is nothing but shit stirring.
Or to put it another way.........put up or shut up.
PS, thanks Fram Crimi for being a inspiration to Bob Fancher
The pure pendulum stroke with no elbow drop is ok on short distances. It is an easy and repeatable movement. It is easy to teach.
It can be executed even with poor alignment, and that’s both good and bad. However, there are limitations to that kind of a stroke.
.
I teach that the ideal stroking alignment is to have your bridge hand, head, rear shoulder, rear elbow, and grip hand all aligned in one vertical plane. When a player aligns the upper body in this fashion, and keeps everything locked into position except the lower portion of the stroking arm, it makes it a simple matter of pulling straight back on the cue and then letting it go straight forward again. It's called economy of motion.
But then I stress to the student that this so-called "ideal" alignment is not absolutely necessary in order to achieve a straight stroke. After all, not everyone has the "ideal" physical characteristics required to achieve this "ideal" alignment. For example, how would you teach this to someone who has to shoot from a wheel chair?
I think that I will get these words engraved on my case or arm or somewhere.
But they beg the question: exactly how do you effectively watch out for these compensations? In my experience, they tend to happen so subtly and insideously that they are on you before you know it!
But perhaps a subject for a different thread - I am not trying to hijack this one!:embarrassed2:
Well, you can start out by figuring out what you're doing right when you're playing well. Then incorporate that into a check list for yourself. That's what I do for myself. When things start to go wrong, I don't always know why right away. But when I go down my check list, I will ususally spot something.
Another thing is to figure out what your tendencies are ---Like, do you tend to twist the cue when you're under pressure? Do you tend to overcut or undercut certain shots? You've got to gauge the results of what you are doing at the table because this information is invaluable to you. Don't just walk away after you miss. What kind of shot did you miss? What type of English were you trying to apply, and so-on.
Let's focus on 2 lines and the relationship between them:
1) The line formed by your elbow and shoulder
2) The line formed by your grip hand and elbow
Stand up straight with your arms by your side. Contract only the bicep of your shooting arm. Does your arm (line 2) move straight up towards your shoulder? Or does it go inwards towards your chest? It should go inwards towards your chest. This is what I consider your body's natural stroking motion.
For the sake of comparison, contract only your bicep so that line 2 does move straight towards your shoulder. Does it feel like you're working a slightly different part of your muscle?
Instead of positioning your hand, elbow, and shoulder in a straight line with a shot, I advocate an alignment in which line 2 points inwards towards your body in relation to line 1 So your shoulder will jut out, and the line/movement of your hand and elbow will pivot in a line inside of your shoulder. The line formed by your shoulder and elbow will be angled away from the shot (outwards from the body) - in order for the motion of your grip hand and elbow to be lined up with the shot.
Here's a good picture representation. Notice how line 1 points away from the shot and how much line 2 crosses the body in relation to it.
You'll see this type of alignment used by Mika, Shane, Alex P, Corteza, Efren, and the list goes on and on. Bustamante and McCready are frequently cited in discussions around variations in alignments and how anything can work. However, I'd counter that they have the same basic arm alignment as the others. The entire stroking plane is just angled - line 1, line 2, and the stroking line of the cue have the same or at least a highly similar relationship.
Try visualizing Bustamante's stroke plane rotated and compare to the above.
Same goes for Keith. Notice the similarities in the line 1 - line 2 relationship.
So those are my thoughts on stroke alignment. Feel free to disagree with me and I encourage you to state your own opinions.
Let's focus on 2 lines and the relationship between them:
1) The line formed by your elbow and shoulder
2) The line formed by your grip hand and elbow
Stand up straight with your arms by your side. Contract only the bicep of your shooting arm. Does your arm (line 2) move straight up towards your shoulder? Or does it go inwards towards your chest? It should go inwards towards your chest. This is what I consider your body's natural stroking motion.
For the sake of comparison, contract only your bicep so that line 2 does move straight towards your shoulder. Does it feel like you're working a slightly different part of your muscle?
Instead of positioning your hand, elbow, and shoulder in a straight line with a shot, I advocate an alignment in which line 2 points inwards towards your body in relation to line 1 So your shoulder will jut out, and the line/movement of your hand and elbow will pivot in a line inside of your shoulder. The line formed by your shoulder and elbow will be angled away from the shot (outwards from the body) - in order for the motion of your grip hand and elbow to be lined up with the shot.
You'll see this type of alignment used by Mika, Shane, Alex P, Corteza, Efren, and the list goes on and on. Bustamante and McCready are frequently cited in discussions around variations in alignments and how anything can work. However, I'd counter that they have the same basic arm alignment as the others. The entire stroking plane is just angled - line 1, line 2, and the stroking line of the cue have the same or at least a highly similar relationship.
So those are my thoughts on stroke alignment. Feel free to disagree with me and I encourage you to state your own opinions.
Very nice observation luckwouldhaveit. It is exactly how they look, if I read your interpretation correctly.
An extreme example would be Alcano as well.
In case of Mika this is more pronounced on shots close to the rail.
I have been experimenting with that type of lineup for the last couple of months.
Which have led to some terrible inconsistency, highs and lows, but an interesting ride. When it works it works very well.
I think your conclusions are probably about right, particularly for the pendulum stroke players.
For the elbow-droppers, things may be a little less clear cut. Timing errors are more likely to be more costly if line 1 is not parallel with the shot line.
